(upbeat music) >> Hello and welcome to theCube's coverage of International Women's Day. I'm John Furrier, your host of "theCUBE." We've got great two remote guests coming into our Palo Alto Studios, some tech athletes, as we say, people that've been in the trenches, years of experience, Lena Smart, CISO at MongoDB, Cube alumni, and Tara Hernandez, VP of Developer Productivity at MongoDB as well. Thanks for coming in to this program and supporting our efforts today. Thanks so much. >> Thanks for having us. >> Yeah, everyone talk about the journey in tech, where it all started. Before we get there, talk about what you guys are doing at MongoDB specifically. MongoDB is kind of gone the next level as a platform. You have your own ecosystem, lot of developers, very technical crowd, but it's changing the business transformation. What do you guys do at Mongo? We'll start with you, Lena. >> So I'm the CISO, so all security goes through me. I like to say, well, I don't like to say, I'm described as the ones throat to choke. So anything to do with security basically starts and ends with me. We do have a fantastic Cloud engineering security team and a product security team, and they don't report directly to me, but obviously we have very close relationships. I like to keep that kind of church and state separate and I know I've spoken about that before. And we just recently set up a physical security team with an amazing gentleman who left the FBI and he came to join us after 26 years for the agency. So, really starting to look at the physical aspects of what we offer as well. >> I interviewed a CISO the other day and she said, "Every day is day zero for me." Kind of goofing on the Amazon Day one thing, but Tara, go ahead. Tara, go ahead. What's your role there, developer productivity? What are you focusing on? >> Sure. Developer productivity is kind of the latest description for things that we've described over the years as, you know, DevOps oriented engineering or platform engineering or build and release engineering development infrastructure. It's all part and parcel, which is how do we actually get our code from developer to customer, you know, and all the mechanics that go into that. It's been something I discovered from my first job way back in the early '90s at Borland. And the art has just evolved enormously ever since, so. >> Yeah, this is a very great conversation both of you guys, right in the middle of all the action and data infrastructures changing, exploding, and involving big time AI and data tsunami and security never stops. Well, let's get into, we'll talk about that later, but let's get into what motivated you guys to pursue a career in tech and what were some of the challenges that you faced along the way? >> I'll go first. The fact of the matter was I intended to be a double major in history and literature when I went off to university, but I was informed that I had to do a math or a science degree or else the university would not be paid for. At the time, UC Santa Cruz had a policy that called Open Access Computing. This is, you know, the late '80s, early '90s. And anybody at the university could get an email account and that was unusual at the time if you were, those of us who remember, you used to have to pay for that CompuServe or AOL or, there's another one, I forget what it was called, but if a student at Santa Cruz could have an email account. And because of that email account, I met people who were computer science majors and I'm like, "Okay, I'll try that." That seems good. And it was a little bit of a struggle for me, a lot I won't lie, but I can't complain with how it ended up. And certainly once I found my niche, which was development infrastructure, I found my true love and I've been doing it for almost 30 years now. >> Awesome. Great story. Can't wait to ask a few questions on that. We'll go back to that late '80s, early '90s. Lena, your journey, how you got into it. >> So slightly different start. I did not go to university. I had to leave school when I was 16, got a job, had to help support my family. Worked a bunch of various jobs till I was about 21 and then computers became more, I think, I wouldn't say they were ubiquitous, but they were certainly out there. And I'd also been saving up every penny I could earn to buy my own computer and bought an Amstrad 1640, 20 meg hard drive. It rocked. And kind of took that apart, put it back together again, and thought that could be money in this. And so basically just teaching myself about computers any job that I got. 'Cause most of my jobs were like clerical work and secretary at that point. But any job that had a computer in front of that, I would make it my business to go find the guy who did computing 'cause it was always a guy. And I would say, you know, I want to learn how these work. Let, you know, show me. And, you know, I would take my lunch hour and after work and anytime I could with these people and they were very kind with their time and I just kept learning, so yep. >> Yeah, those early days remind me of the inflection point we're going through now. This major C change coming. Back then, if you had a computer, you had to kind of be your own internal engineer to fix things. Remember back on the systems revolution, late '80s, Tara, when, you know, your career started, those were major inflection points. Now we're seeing a similar wave right now, security, infrastructure. It feels like it's going to a whole nother level. At Mongo, you guys certainly see this as well, with this AI surge coming in. A lot more action is coming in. And so there's a lot of parallels between these inflection points. How do you guys see this next wave of change? Obviously, the AI stuff's blowing everyone away. Oh, new user interface. It's been called the browser moment, the mobile iPhone moment, kind of for this generation. There's a lot of people out there who are watching that are young in their careers, what's your take on this? How would you talk to those folks around how important this wave is? >> It, you know, it's funny, I've been having this conversation quite a bit recently in part because, you know, to me AI in a lot of ways is very similar to, you know, back in the '90s when we were talking about bringing in the worldwide web to the forefront of the world, right. And we tended to think in terms of all the optimistic benefits that would come of it. You know, free passing of information, availability to anyone, anywhere. You just needed an internet connection, which back then of course meant a modem. >> John: Not everyone had though. >> Exactly. But what we found in the subsequent years is that human beings are what they are and we bring ourselves to whatever platforms that are there, right. And so, you know, as much as it was amazing to have this freely available HTML based internet experience, it also meant that the negatives came to the forefront quite quickly. And there were ramifications of that. And so to me, when I look at AI, we're already seeing the ramifications to that. Yes, are there these amazing, optimistic, wonderful things that can be done? Yes. >> Yeah. >> But we're also human and the bad stuff's going to come out too. And how do we- >> Yeah. >> How do we as an industry, as a community, you know, understand and mitigate those ramifications so that we can benefit more from the positive than the negative. So it is interesting that it comes kind of full circle in really interesting ways. >> Yeah. The underbelly takes place first, gets it in the early adopter mode. Normally industries with, you know, money involved arbitrage, no standards. But we've seen this movie before. Is there hope, Lena, that we can have a more secure environment? >> I would hope so. (Lena laughs) Although depressingly, we've been in this well for 30 years now and we're, at the end of the day, still telling people not to click links on emails. So yeah, that kind of still keeps me awake at night a wee bit. The whole thing about AI, I mean, it's, obviously I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination in AI. I did read (indistinct) book recently about AI and that was kind of interesting. And I'm just trying to teach myself as much as I can about it to the extent of even buying the "Dummies Guide to AI." Just because, it's actually not a dummies guide. It's actually fairly interesting, but I'm always thinking about it from a security standpoint. So it's kind of my worst nightmare and the best thing that could ever happen in the same dream. You know, you've got this technology where I can ask it a question and you know, it spits out generally a reasonable answer. And my team are working on with Mark Porter our CTO and his team on almost like an incubation of AI link. What would it look like from MongoDB? What's the legal ramifications? 'Cause there will be legal ramifications even though it's the wild, wild west just now, I think. Regulation's going to catch up to us pretty quickly, I would think. >> John: Yeah, yeah. >> And so I think, you know, as long as companies have a seat at the table and governments perhaps don't become too dictatorial over this, then hopefully we'll be in a good place. But we'll see. I think it's a really interest, there's that curse, we're living in interesting times. I think that's where we are. >> It's interesting just to stay on this tech trend for a minute. The standards bodies are different now. Back in the old days there were, you know, IEEE standards, ITF standards. >> Tara: TPC. >> The developers are the new standard. I mean, now you're seeing open source completely different where it was in the '90s to here beginning, that was gen one, some say gen two, but I say gen one, now we're exploding with open source. You have kind of developers setting the standards. If developers like it in droves, it becomes defacto, which then kind of rolls into implementation. >> Yeah, I mean I think if you don't have developer input, and this is why I love working with Tara and her team so much is 'cause they get it. If we don't have input from developers, it's not going to get used. There's going to be ways of of working around it, especially when it comes to security. If they don't, you know, if you're a developer and you're sat at your screen and you don't want to do that particular thing, you're going to find a way around it. You're a smart person. >> Yeah. >> So. >> Developers on the front lines now versus, even back in the '90s, they're like, "Okay, consider the dev's, got a QA team." Everything was Waterfall, now it's Cloud, and developers are on the front lines of everything. Tara, I mean, this is where the standards are being met. What's your reaction to that? >> Well, I think it's outstanding. I mean, you know, like I was at Netscape and part of the crowd that released the browser as open source and we founded mozilla.org, right. And that was, you know, in many ways kind of the birth of the modern open source movement beyond what we used to have, what was basically free software foundation was sort of the only game in town. And I think it is so incredibly valuable. I want to emphasize, you know, and pile onto what Lena was saying, it's not just that the developers are having input on a sort of company by company basis. Open source to me is like a checks and balance, where it allows us as a broader community to be able to agree on and enforce certain standards in order to try and keep the technology platforms as accessible as possible. I think Kubernetes is a great example of that, right. If we didn't have Kubernetes, that would've really changed the nature of how we think about container orchestration. But even before that, Linux, right. Linux allowed us as an industry to end the Unix Wars and as someone who was on the front lines of that as well and having to support 42 different operating systems with our product, you know, that was a huge win. And it allowed us to stop arguing about operating systems and start arguing about software or not arguing, but developing it in positive ways. So with, you know, with Kubernetes, with container orchestration, we all agree, okay, that's just how we're going to orchestrate. Now we can build up this huge ecosystem, everybody gets taken along, right. And now it changes the game for what we're defining as business differentials, right. And so when we talk about crypto, that's a little bit harder, but certainly with AI, right, you know, what are the checks and balances that as an industry and as the developers around this, that we can in, you know, enforce to make sure that no one company or no one body is able to overly control how these things are managed, how it's defined. And I think that is only for the benefit in the industry as a whole, particularly when we think about the only other option is it gets regulated in ways that do not involve the people who actually know the details of what they're talking about. >> Regulated and or thrown away or bankrupt or- >> Driven underground. >> Yeah. >> Which would be even worse actually. >> Yeah, that's a really interesting, the checks and balances. I love that call out. And I was just talking with another interview part of the series around women being represented in the 51% ratio. Software is for everybody. So that we believe that open source movement around the collective intelligence of the participants in the industry and independent of gender, this is going to be the next wave. You're starting to see these videos really have impact because there are a lot more leaders now at the table in companies developing software systems and with AI, the aperture increases for applications. And this is the new dynamic. What's your guys view on this dynamic? How does this go forward in a positive way? Is there a certain trajectory you see? For women in the industry? >> I mean, I think some of the states are trying to, again, from the government angle, some of the states are trying to force women into the boardroom, for example, California, which can be no bad thing, but I don't know, sometimes I feel a bit iffy about all this kind of forced- >> John: Yeah. >> You know, making, I don't even know how to say it properly so you can cut this part of the interview. (John laughs) >> Tara: Well, and I think that they're >> I'll say it's not organic. >> No, and I think they're already pulling it out, right. It's already been challenged so they're in the process- >> Well, this is the open source angle, Tara, you are getting at it. The change agent is open, right? So to me, the history of the proven model is openness drives transparency drives progress. >> No, it's- >> If you believe that to be true, this could have another impact. >> Yeah, it's so interesting, right. Because if you look at McKinsey Consulting or Boston Consulting or some of the other, I'm blocking on all of the names. There has been a decade or more of research that shows that a non homogeneous employee base, be it gender or ethnicity or whatever, generates more revenue, right? There's dollar signs that can be attached to this, but it's not enough for all companies to want to invest in that way. And it's not enough for all, you know, venture firms or investment firms to grant that seed money or do those seed rounds. I think it's getting better very slowly, but socialization is a much harder thing to overcome over time. Particularly, when you're not just talking about one country like the United States in our case, but around the world. You know, tech centers now exist all over the world, including places that even 10 years ago we might not have expected like Nairobi, right. Which I think is amazing, but you have to factor in the cultural implications of that as well, right. So yes, the openness is important and we have, it's important that we have those voices, but I don't think it's a panacea solution, right. It's just one more piece. I think honestly that one of the most important opportunities has been with Cloud computing and Cloud's been around for a while. So why would I say that? It's because if you think about like everybody holds up the Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, back in the '70s, or Sergey and Larry for Google, you know, you had to have access to enough credit card limit to go to Fry's and buy your servers and then access to somebody like Susan Wojcicki to borrow the garage or whatever. But there was still a certain amount of upfrontness that you had to be able to commit to, whereas now, and we've, I think, seen a really good evidence of this being able to lease server resources by the second and have development platforms that you can do on your phone. I mean, for a while I think Africa, that the majority of development happened on mobile devices because there wasn't a sufficient supply chain of laptops yet. And that's no longer true now as far as I know. But like the power that that enables for people who would otherwise be underrepresented in our industry instantly opens it up, right? And so to me that's I think probably the biggest opportunity that we've seen from an industry on how to make more availability in underrepresented representation for entrepreneurship. >> Yeah. >> Something like AI, I think that's actually going to take us backwards if we're not careful. >> Yeah. >> Because of we're reinforcing that socialization. >> Well, also the bias. A lot of people commenting on the biases of the large language inherently built in are also problem. Lena, I want you to weigh on this too, because I think the skills question comes up here and I've been advocating that you don't need the pedigree, college pedigree, to get into a certain jobs, you mentioned Cloud computing. I mean, it's been around for you think a long time, but not really, really think about it. The ability to level up, okay, if you're going to join something new and half the jobs in cybersecurity are created in the past year, right? So, you have this what used to be a barrier, your degree, your pedigree, your certification would take years, would be a blocker. Now that's gone. >> Lena: Yeah, it's the opposite. >> That's, in fact, psychology. >> I think so, but the people who I, by and large, who I interview for jobs, they have, I think security people and also I work with our compliance folks and I can't forget them, but let's talk about security just now. I've always found a particular kind of mindset with security folks. We're very curious, not very good at following rules a lot of the time, and we'd love to teach others. I mean, that's one of the big things stem from the start of my career. People were always interested in teaching and I was interested in learning. So it was perfect. And I think also having, you know, strong women leaders at MongoDB allows other underrepresented groups to actually apply to the company 'cause they see that we're kind of talking the talk. And that's been important. I think it's really important. You know, you've got Tara and I on here today. There's obviously other senior women at MongoDB that you can talk to as well. There's a bunch of us. There's not a whole ton of us, but there's a bunch of us. And it's good. It's definitely growing. I've been there for four years now and I've seen a growth in women in senior leadership positions. And I think having that kind of track record of getting really good quality underrepresented candidates to not just interview, but come and join us, it's seen. And it's seen in the industry and people take notice and they're like, "Oh, okay, well if that person's working, you know, if Tara Hernandez is working there, I'm going to apply for that." And that in itself I think can really, you know, reap the rewards. But it's getting started. It's like how do you get your first strong female into that position or your first strong underrepresented person into that position? It's hard. I get it. If it was easy, we would've sold already. >> It's like anything. I want to see people like me, my friends in there. Am I going to be alone? Am I going to be of a group? It's a group psychology. Why wouldn't? So getting it out there is key. Is there skills that you think that people should pay attention to? One's come up as curiosity, learning. What are some of the best practices for folks trying to get into the tech field or that's in the tech field and advancing through? What advice are you guys- >> I mean, yeah, definitely, what I say to my team is within my budget, we try and give every at least one training course a year. And there's so much free stuff out there as well. But, you know, keep learning. And even if it's not right in your wheelhouse, don't pick about it. Don't, you know, take a look at what else could be out there that could interest you and then go for it. You know, what does it take you few minutes each night to read a book on something that might change your entire career? You know, be enthusiastic about the opportunities out there. And there's so many opportunities in security. Just so many. >> Tara, what's your advice for folks out there? Tons of stuff to taste, taste test, try things. >> Absolutely. I mean, I always say, you know, my primary qualifications for people, I'm looking for them to be smart and motivated, right. Because the industry changes so quickly. What we're doing now versus what we did even last year versus five years ago, you know, is completely different though themes are certainly the same. You know, we still have to code and we still have to compile that code or package the code and ship the code so, you know, how well can we adapt to these new things instead of creating floppy disks, which was my first job. Five and a quarters, even. The big ones. >> That's old school, OG. There it is. Well done. >> And now it's, you know, containers, you know, (indistinct) image containers. And so, you know, I've gotten a lot of really great success hiring boot campers, you know, career transitioners. Because they bring a lot experience in addition to the technical skills. I think the most important thing is to experiment and figuring out what do you like, because, you know, maybe you are really into security or maybe you're really into like deep level coding and you want to go back, you know, try to go to school to get a degree where you would actually want that level of learning. Or maybe you're a front end engineer, you want to be full stacked. Like there's so many different things, data science, right. Maybe you want to go learn R right. You know, I think it's like figure out what you like because once you find that, that in turn is going to energize you 'cause you're going to feel motivated. I think the worst thing you could do is try to force yourself to learn something that you really could not care less about. That's just the worst. You're going in handicapped. >> Yeah and there's choices now versus when we were breaking into the business. It was like, okay, you software engineer. They call it software engineering, that's all it was. You were that or you were in sales. Like, you know, some sort of systems engineer or sales and now it's,- >> I had never heard of my job when I was in school, right. I didn't even know it was a possibility. But there's so many different types of technical roles, you know, absolutely. >> It's so exciting. I wish I was young again. >> One of the- >> Me too. (Lena laughs) >> I don't. I like the age I am. So one of the things that I did to kind of harness that curiosity is we've set up a security champions programs. About 120, I guess, volunteers globally. And these are people from all different backgrounds and all genders, diversity groups, underrepresented groups, we feel are now represented within this champions program. And people basically give up about an hour or two of their time each week, with their supervisors permission, and we basically teach them different things about security. And we've now had seven full-time people move from different areas within MongoDB into my team as a result of that program. So, you know, monetarily and time, yeah, saved us both. But also we're showing people that there is a path, you know, if you start off in Tara's team, for example, doing X, you join the champions program, you're like, "You know, I'd really like to get into red teaming. That would be so cool." If it fits, then we make that happen. And that has been really important for me, especially to give, you know, the women in the underrepresented groups within MongoDB just that window into something they might never have seen otherwise. >> That's a great common fit is fit matters. Also that getting access to what you fit is also access to either mentoring or sponsorship or some sort of, at least some navigation. Like what's out there and not being afraid to like, you know, just ask. >> Yeah, we just actually kicked off our big mentor program last week, so I'm the executive sponsor of that. I know Tara is part of it, which is fantastic. >> We'll put a plug in for it. Go ahead. >> Yeah, no, it's amazing. There's, gosh, I don't even know the numbers anymore, but there's a lot of people involved in this and so much so that we've had to set up mentoring groups rather than one-on-one. And I think it was 45% of the mentors are actually male, which is quite incredible for a program called Mentor Her. And then what we want to do in the future is actually create a program called Mentor Them so that it's not, you know, not just on the female and so that we can live other groups represented and, you know, kind of break down those groups a wee bit more and have some more granularity in the offering. >> Tara, talk about mentoring and sponsorship. Open source has been there for a long time. People help each other. It's community-oriented. What's your view of how to work with mentors and sponsors if someone's moving through ranks? >> You know, one of the things that was really interesting, unfortunately, in some of the earliest open source communities is there was a lot of pervasive misogyny to be perfectly honest. >> Yeah. >> And one of the important adaptations that we made as an open source community was the idea, an introduction of code of conducts. And so when I'm talking to women who are thinking about expanding their skills, I encourage them to join open source communities to have opportunity, even if they're not getting paid for it, you know, to develop their skills to work with people to get those code reviews, right. I'm like, "Whatever you join, make sure they have a code of conduct and a good leadership team. It's very important." And there are plenty, right. And then that idea has come into, you know, conferences now. So now conferences have codes of contact, if there are any good, and maybe not all of them, but most of them, right. And the ideas of expanding that idea of intentional healthy culture. >> John: Yeah. >> As a business goal and business differentiator. I mean, I won't lie, when I was recruited to come to MongoDB, the culture that I was able to discern through talking to people, in addition to seeing that there was actually women in senior leadership roles like Lena, like Kayla Nelson, that was a huge win. And so it just builds on momentum. And so now, you know, those of us who are in that are now representing. And so that kind of reinforces, but it's all ties together, right. As the open source world goes, particularly for a company like MongoDB, which has an open source product, you know, and our community builds. You know, it's a good thing to be mindful of for us, how we interact with the community and you know, because that could also become an opportunity for recruiting. >> John: Yeah. >> Right. So we, in addition to people who might become advocates on Mongo's behalf in their own company as a solution for themselves, so. >> You guys had great successful company and great leadership there. I mean, I can't tell you how many times someone's told me "MongoDB doesn't scale. It's going to be dead next year." I mean, I was going back 10 years. It's like, just keeps getting better and better. You guys do a great job. So it's so fun to see the success of developers. Really appreciate you guys coming on the program. Final question, what are you guys excited about to end the segment? We'll give you guys the last word. Lena will start with you and Tara, you can wrap us up. What are you excited about? >> I'm excited to see what this year brings. I think with ChatGPT and its copycats, I think it'll be a very interesting year when it comes to AI and always in the lookout for the authentic deep fakes that we see coming out. So just trying to make people aware that this is a real thing. It's not just pretend. And then of course, our old friend ransomware, let's see where that's going to go. >> John: Yeah. >> And let's see where we get to and just genuine hygiene and housekeeping when it comes to security. >> Excellent. Tara. >> Ah, well for us, you know, we're always constantly trying to up our game from a security perspective in the software development life cycle. But also, you know, what can we do? You know, one interesting application of AI that maybe Google doesn't like to talk about is it is really cool as an addendum to search and you know, how we might incorporate that as far as our learning environment and developer productivity, and how can we enable our developers to be more efficient, productive in their day-to-day work. So, I don't know, there's all kinds of opportunities that we're looking at for how we might improve that process here at MongoDB and then maybe be able to share it with the world. One of the things I love about working at MongoDB is we get to use our own products, right. And so being able to have this interesting document database in order to put information and then maybe apply some sort of AI to get it out again, is something that we may well be looking at, if not this year, then certainly in the coming year. >> Awesome. Lena Smart, the chief information security officer. Tara Hernandez, vice president developer of productivity from MongoDB. Thank you so much for sharing here on International Women's Day. We're going to do this quarterly every year. We're going to do it and then we're going to do quarterly updates. Thank you so much for being part of this program. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for having us. >> Okay, this is theCube's coverage of International Women's Day. I'm John Furrier, your host. Thanks for watching. (upbeat music)

(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)

(upbeat music) >> Hello, everyone, welcome to theCUBE. I'm John Furrier, the host of theCUBE in Palo Alto, California. Also it's SiliconANGLE News. Got two great guests here to talk about AI, the impact of the future of the internet, the applications, the people. Amr Awadallah, the founder and CEO, Ed Alban is the CEO of Vectara, a new startup that emerged out of the original Cloudera, I would say, 'cause Amr's known, famous for the Cloudera founding, which was really the beginning of the big data movement. And now as AI goes mainstream, there's so much to talk about, so much to go on. And plus the new company is one of the, now what I call the wave, this next big wave, I call it the fifth wave in the industry. You know, you had PCs, you had the internet, you had mobile. This generative AI thing is real. And you're starting to see startups come out in droves. Amr obviously was founder of Cloudera, Big Data, and now Vectara. And Ed Albanese, you guys have a new company. Welcome to the show. >> Thank you. It's great to be here. >> So great to see you. Now the story is theCUBE started in the Cloudera office. Thanks to you, and your friendly entrepreneurship views that you have. We got to know each other over the years. But Cloudera had Hadoop, which was the beginning of what I call the big data wave, which then became what we now call data lakes, data oceans, and data infrastructure that's developed from that. It's almost interesting to look back 12 plus years, and see that what AI is doing now, right now, is opening up the eyes to the mainstream, and the application's almost mind blowing. You know, Sati Natel called it the Mosaic Moment, didn't say Netscape, he built Netscape (laughing) but called it the Mosaic Moment. You're seeing companies in startups, kind of the alpha geeks running here, because this is the new frontier, and there's real meat on the bone, in terms of like things to do. Why? Why is this happening now? What's is the confluence of the forces happening, that are making this happen? >> Yeah, I mean if you go back to the Cloudera days, with big data, and so on, that was more about data processing. Like how can we process data, so we can extract numbers from it, and do reporting, and maybe take some actions, like this is a fraud transaction, or this is not. And in the meanwhile, many of the researchers working in the neural network, and deep neural network space, were trying to focus on data understanding, like how can I understand the data, and learn from it, so I can take actual actions, based on the data directly, just like a human does. And we were only good at doing that at the level of somebody who was five years old, or seven years old, all the way until about 2013. And starting in 2013, which is only 10 years ago, a number of key innovations started taking place, and each one added on. It was no major innovation that just took place. It was a couple of really incremental ones, but they added on top of each other, in a very exponentially additive way, that led to, by the end of 2019, we now have models, deep neural network models, that can read and understand human text just like we do. Right? And they can reason about it, and argue with you, and explain it to you. And I think that's what is unlocking this whole new wave of innovation that we're seeing right now. So data understanding would be the essence of it. >> So it's not a Big Bang kind of theory, it's been evolving over time, and I think that the tipping point has been the advancements and other things. I mean look at cloud computing, and look how fast it just crept up on AWS. I mean AWS you back three, five years ago, I was talking to Swami yesterday, and their big news about AI, expanding the Hugging Face's relationship with AWS. And just three, five years ago, there wasn't a model training models out there. But as compute comes out, and you got more horsepower,, these large language models, these foundational models, they're flexible, they're not monolithic silos, they're interacting. There's a whole new, almost fusion of data happening. Do you see that? I mean is that part of this? >> Of course, of course. I mean this wave is building on all the previous waves. We wouldn't be at this point if we did not have hardware that can scale, in a very efficient way. We wouldn't be at this point, if we don't have data that we're collecting about everything we do, that we're able to process in this way. So this, this movement, this motion, this phase we're in, absolutely builds on the shoulders of all the previous phases. For some of the observers from the outside, when they see chatGPT for the first time, for them was like, "Oh my god, this just happened overnight." Like it didn't happen overnight. (laughing) GPT itself, like GPT3, which is what chatGPT is based on, was released a year ahead of chatGPT, and many of us were seeing the power it can provide, and what it can do. I don't know if Ed agrees with that. >> Yeah, Ed? >> I do. Although I would acknowledge that the possibilities now, because of what we've hit from a maturity standpoint, have just opened up in an incredible way, that just wasn't tenable even three years ago. And that's what makes it, it's true that it developed incrementally, in the same way that, you know, the possibilities of a mobile handheld device, you know, in 2006 were there, but when the iPhone came out, the possibilities just exploded. And that's the moment we're in. >> Well, I've had many conversations over the past couple months around this area with chatGPT. John Markoff told me the other day, that he calls it, "The five dollar toy," because it's not that big of a deal, in context to what AI's doing behind the scenes, and all the work that's done on ethics, that's happened over the years, but it has woken up the mainstream, so everyone immediately jumps to ethics. "Does it work? "It's not factual," And everyone who's inside the industry is like, "This is amazing." 'Cause you have two schools of thought there. One's like, people that think this is now the beginning of next gen, this is now we're here, this ain't your grandfather's chatbot, okay?" With NLP, it's got reasoning, it's got other things. >> I'm in that camp for sure. >> Yeah. Well I mean, everyone who knows what's going on is in that camp. And as the naysayers start to get through this, and they go, "Wow, it's not just plagiarizing homework, "it's helping me be better. "Like it could rewrite my memo, "bring the lead to the top." It's so the format of the user interface is interesting, but it's still a data-driven app. >> Absolutely. >> So where does it go from here? 'Cause I'm not even calling this the first ending. This is like pregame, in my opinion. What do you guys see this going, in terms of scratching the surface to what happens next? >> I mean, I'll start with, I just don't see how an application is going to look the same in the next three years. Who's going to want to input data manually, in a form field? Who is going to want, or expect, to have to put in some text in a search box, and then read through 15 different possibilities, and try to figure out which one of them actually most closely resembles the question they asked? You know, I don't see that happening. Who's going to start with an absolute blank sheet of paper, and expect no help? That is not how an application will work in the next three years, and it's going to fundamentally change how people interact and spend time with opening any element on their mobile phone, or on their computer, to get something done. >> Yes. I agree with that. Like every single application, over the next five years, will be rewritten, to fit within this model. So imagine an HR application, I don't want to name companies, but imagine an HR application, and you go into application and you clicking on buttons, because you want to take two weeks of vacation, and menus, and clicking here and there, reasons and managers, versus just telling the system, "I'm taking two weeks of vacation, going to Las Vegas," book it, done. >> Yeah. >> And the system just does it for you. If you weren't completing in your input, in your description, for what you want, then the system asks you back, "Did you mean this? "Did you mean that? "Were you trying to also do this as well?" >> Yeah. >> "What was the reason?" And that will fit it for you, and just do it for you. So I think the user interface that we have with apps, is going to change to be very similar to the user interface that we have with each other. And that's why all these apps will need to evolve. >> I know we don't have a lot of time, 'cause you guys are very busy, but I want to definitely have multiple segments with you guys, on this topic, because there's so much to talk about. There's a lot of parallels going on here. I was talking again with Swami who runs all the AI database at AWS, and I asked him, I go, "This feels a lot like the original AWS. "You don't have to provision a data center." A lot of this heavy lifting on the back end, is these large language models, with these foundational models. So the bottleneck in the past, was the energy, and cost to actually do it. Now you're seeing it being stood up faster. So there's definitely going to be a tsunami of apps. I would see that clearly. What is it? We don't know yet. But also people who are going to leverage the fact that I can get started building value. So I see a startup boom coming, and I see an application tsunami of refactoring things. >> Yes. >> So the replatforming is already kind of happening. >> Yes, >> OpenAI, chatGPT, whatever. So that's going to be a developer environment. I mean if Amazon turns this into an API, or a Microsoft, what you guys are doing. >> We're turning it into API as well. That's part of what we're doing as well, yes. >> This is why this is exciting. Amr, you've lived the big data dream, and and we used to talk, if you didn't have a big data problem, if you weren't full of data, you weren't really getting it. Now people have all the data, and they got to stand this up. >> Yeah. >> So the analogy is again, the mobile, I like the mobile movement, and using mobile as an analogy, most companies were not building for a mobile environment, right? They were just building for the web, and legacy way of doing apps. And as soon as the user expectations shifted, that my expectation now, I need to be able to do my job on this small screen, on the mobile device with a touchscreen. Everybody had to invest in re-architecting, and re-implementing every single app, to fit within that model, and that model of interaction. And we are seeing the exact same thing happen now. And one of the core things we're focused on at Vectara, is how to simplify that for organizations, because a lot of them are overwhelmed by large language models, and ML. >> They don't have the staff. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're understaffed, they don't have the skills. >> But they got developers, they've got DevOps, right? >> Yes. >> So they have the DevSecOps going on. >> Exactly, yes. >> So our goal is to simplify it enough for them that they can start leveraging this technology effectively, within their applications. >> Ed, you're the COO of the company, obviously a startup. You guys are growing. You got great backup, and good team. You've also done a lot of business development, and technical business development in this area. If you look at the landscape right now, and I agree the apps are coming, every company I talk to, that has that jet chatGPT of, you know, epiphany, "Oh my God, look how cool this is. "Like magic." Like okay, it's code, settle down. >> Mm hmm. >> But everyone I talk to is using it in a very horizontal way. I talk to a very senior person, very tech alpha geek, very senior person in the industry, technically. they're using it for log data, they're using it for configuration of routers. And in other areas, they're using it for, every vertical has a use case. So this is horizontally scalable from a use case standpoint. When you hear horizontally scalable, first thing I chose in my mind is cloud, right? >> Mm hmm. >> So cloud, and scalability that way. And the data is very specialized. So now you have this vertical specialization, horizontally scalable, everyone will be refactoring. What do you see, and what are you seeing from customers, that you talk to, and prospects? >> Yeah, I mean put yourself in the shoes of an application developer, who is actually trying to make their application a bit more like magic. And to have that soon-to-be, honestly, expected experience. They've got to think about things like performance, and how efficiently that they can actually execute a query, or a question. They've got to think about cost. Generative isn't cheap, like the inference of it. And so you've got to be thoughtful about how and when you take advantage of it, you can't use it as a, you know, everything looks like a nail, and I've got a hammer, and I'm going to hit everything with it, because that will be wasteful. Developers also need to think about how they're going to take advantage of, but not lose their own data. So there has to be some controls around what they feed into the large language model, if anything. Like, should they fine tune a large language model with their own data? Can they keep it logically separated, but still take advantage of the powers of a large language model? And they've also got to take advantage, and be aware of the fact that when data is generated, that it is a different class of data. It might not fully be their own. >> Yeah. >> And it may not even be fully verified. And so when the logical cycle starts, of someone making a request, the relationship between that request, and the output, those things have to be stored safely, logically, and identified as such. >> Yeah. >> And taken advantage of in an ongoing fashion. So these are mega problems, each one of them independently, that, you know, you can think of it as middleware companies need to take advantage of, and think about, to help the next wave of application development be logical, sensible, and effective. It's not just calling some raw API on the cloud, like openAI, and then just, you know, you get your answer and you're done, because that is a very brute force approach. >> Well also I will point, first of all, I agree with your statement about the apps experience, that's going to be expected, form filling. Great point. The interesting about chatGPT. >> Sorry, it's not just form filling, it's any action you would like to take. >> Yeah. >> Instead of clicking, and dragging, and dropping, and doing it on a menu, or on a touch screen, you just say it, and it's and it happens perfectly. >> Yeah. It's a different interface. And that's why I love that UIUX experiences, that's the people falling out of their chair moment with chatGPT, right? But a lot of the things with chatGPT, if you feed it right, it works great. If you feed it wrong and it goes off the rails, it goes off the rails big. >> Yes, yes. >> So the the Bing catastrophes. >> Yeah. >> And that's an example of garbage in, garbage out, classic old school kind of comp-side phrase that we all use. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> This is about data in injection, right? It reminds me the old SQL days, if you had to, if you can sling some SQL, you were a magician, you know, to get the right answer, it's pretty much there. So you got to feed the AI. >> You do, Some people call this, the early word to describe this as prompt engineering. You know, old school, you know, search, or, you know, engagement with data would be, I'm going to, I have a question or I have a query. New school is, I have, I have to issue it a prompt, because I'm trying to get, you know, an action or a reaction, from the system. And the active engineering, there are a lot of different ways you could do it, all the way from, you know, raw, just I'm going to send you whatever I'm thinking. >> Yeah. >> And you get the unintended outcomes, to more constrained, where I'm going to just use my own data, and I'm going to constrain the initial inputs, the data I already know that's first party, and I trust, to, you know, hyper constrain, where the application is actually, it's looking for certain elements to respond to. >> It's interesting Amr, this is why I love this, because one we are in the media, we're recording this video now, we'll stream it. But we got all your linguistics, we're talking. >> Yes. >> This is data. >> Yep. >> So the data quality becomes now the new intellectual property, because, if you have that prompt source data, it makes data or content, in our case, the original content, intellectual property. >> Absolutely. >> Because that's the value. And that's where you see chatGPT fall down, is because they're trying to scroll the web, and people think it's search. It's not necessarily search, it's giving you something that you wanted. It is a lot of that, I remember in Cloudera, you said, "Ask the right questions." Remember that phrase you guys had, that slogan? >> Mm hmm. And that's prompt engineering. So that's exactly, that's the reinvention of "Ask the right question," is prompt engineering is, if you don't give these models the question in the right way, and very few people know how to frame it in the right way with the right context, then you will get garbage out. Right? That is the garbage in, garbage out. But if you specify the question correctly, and you provide with it the metadata that constrain what that question is going to be acted upon or answered upon, then you'll get much better answers. And that's exactly what we solved Vectara. >> Okay. So before we get into the last couple minutes we have left, I want to make sure we get a plug in for the opportunity, and the profile of Vectara, your new company. Can you guys both share with me what you think the current situation is? So for the folks who are now having those moments of, "Ah, AI's bullshit," or, "It's not real, it's a lot of stuff," from, "Oh my god, this is magic," to, "Okay, this is the future." >> Yes. >> What would you say to that person, if you're at a cocktail party, or in the elevator say, "Calm down, this is the first inning." How do you explain the dynamics going on right now, to someone who's either in the industry, but not in the ropes? How would you explain like, what this wave's about? How would you describe it, and how would you prepare them for how to change their life around this? >> Yeah, so I'll go first and then I'll let Ed go. Efficiency, efficiency is the description. So we figured that a way to be a lot more efficient, a way where you can write a lot more emails, create way more content, create way more presentations. Developers can develop 10 times faster than they normally would. And that is very similar to what happened during the Industrial Revolution. I always like to look at examples from the past, to read what will happen now, and what will happen in the future. So during the Industrial Revolution, it was about efficiency with our hands, right? So I had to make a piece of cloth, like this piece of cloth for this shirt I'm wearing. Our ancestors, they had to spend month taking the cotton, making it into threads, taking the threads, making them into pieces of cloth, and then cutting it. And now a machine makes it just like that, right? And the ancestors now turned from the people that do the thing, to manage the machines that do the thing. And I think the same thing is going to happen now, is our efficiency will be multiplied extremely, as human beings, and we'll be able to do a lot more. And many of us will be able to do things they couldn't do before. So another great example I always like to use is the example of Google Maps, and GPS. Very few of us knew how to drive a car from one location to another, and read a map, and get there correctly. But once that efficiency of an AI, by the way, behind these things is very, very complex AI, that figures out how to do that for us. All of us now became amazing navigators that can go from any point to any point. So that's kind of how I look at the future. >> And that's a great real example of impact. Ed, your take on how you would talk to a friend, or colleague, or anyone who asks like, "How do I make sense of the current situation? "Is it real? "What's in it for me, and what do I do?" I mean every company's rethinking their business right now, around this. What would you say to them? >> You know, I usually like to show, rather than describe. And so, you know, the other day I just got access, I've been using an application for a long time, called Notion, and it's super popular. There's like 30 or 40 million users. And the new version of Notion came out, which has AI embedded within it. And it's AI that allows you primarily to create. So if you could break down the world of AI into find and create, for a minute, just kind of logically separate those two things, find is certainly going to be massively impacted in our experiences as consumers on, you know, Google and Bing, and I can't believe I just said the word Bing in the same sentence as Google, but that's what's happening now (all laughing), because it's a good example of change. >> Yes. >> But also inside the business. But on the crate side, you know, Notion is a wiki product, where you try to, you know, note down things that you are thinking about, or you want to share and memorialize. But sometimes you do need help to get it down fast. And just in the first day of using this new product, like my experience has really fundamentally changed. And I think that anybody who would, you know, anybody say for example, that is using an existing app, I would show them, open up the app. Now imagine the possibility of getting a starting point right off the bat, in five seconds of, instead of having to whole cloth draft this thing, imagine getting a starting point then you can modify and edit, or just dispose of and retry again. And that's the potential for me. I can't imagine a scenario where, in a few years from now, I'm going to be satisfied if I don't have a little bit of help, in the same way that I don't manually spell check every email that I send. I automatically spell check it. I love when I'm getting type ahead support inside of Google, or anything. Doesn't mean I always take it, or when texting. >> That's efficiency too. I mean the cloud was about developers getting stuff up quick. >> Exactly. >> All that heavy lifting is there for you, so you don't have to do it. >> Right? >> And you get to the value faster. >> Exactly. I mean, if history taught us one thing, it's, you have to always embrace efficiency, and if you don't fast enough, you will fall behind. Again, looking at the industrial revolution, the companies that embraced the industrial revolution, they became the leaders in the world, and the ones who did not, they all like. >> Well the AI thing that we got to watch out for, is watching how it goes off the rails. If it doesn't have the right prompt engineering, or data architecture, infrastructure. >> Yes. >> It's a big part. So this comes back down to your startup, real quick, I know we got a couple minutes left. Talk about the company, the motivation, and we'll do a deeper dive on on the company. But what's the motivation? What are you targeting for the market, business model? The tech, let's go. >> Actually, I would like Ed to go first. Go ahead. >> Sure, I mean, we're a developer-first, API-first platform. So the product is oriented around allowing developers who may not be superstars, in being able to either leverage, or choose, or select their own large language models for appropriate use cases. But they that want to be able to instantly add the power of large language models into their application set. We started with search, because we think it's going to be one of the first places that people try to take advantage of large language models, to help find information within an application context. And we've built our own large language models, focused on making it very efficient, and elegant, to find information more quickly. So what a developer can do is, within minutes, go up, register for an account, and get access to a set of APIs, that allow them to send data, to be converted into a format that's easy to understand for large language models, vectors. And then secondarily, they can issue queries, ask questions. And they can ask them very, the questions that can be asked, are very natural language questions. So we're talking about long form sentences, you know, drill down types of questions, and they can get answers that either come back in depending upon the form factor of the user interface, in list form, or summarized form, where summarized equals the opportunity to kind of see a condensed, singular answer. >> All right. I have a. >> Oh okay, go ahead, you go. >> I was just going to say, I'm going to be a customer for you, because I want, my dream was to have a hologram of theCUBE host, me and Dave, and have questions be generated in the metaverse. So you know. (all laughing) >> There'll be no longer any guests here. They'll all be talking to you guys. >> Give a couple bullets, I'll spit out 10 good questions. Publish a story. This brings the automation, I'm sorry to interrupt you. >> No, no. No, no, I was just going to follow on on the same. So another way to look at exactly what Ed described is, we want to offer you chatGPT for your own data, right? So imagine taking all of the recordings of all of the interviews you have done, and having all of the content of that being ingested by a system, where you can now have a conversation with your own data and say, "Oh, last time when I met Amr, "which video games did we talk about? "Which movie or book did we use as an analogy "for how we should be embracing data science, "and big data, which is moneyball," I know you use moneyball all the time. And you start having that conversation. So, now the data doesn't become a passive asset that you just have in your organization. No. It's an active participant that's sitting with you, on the table, helping you make decisions. >> One of my favorite things to do with customers, is to go to their site or application, and show them me using it. So for example, one of the customers I talked to was one of the biggest property management companies in the world, that lets people go and rent homes, and houses, and things like that. And you know, I went and I showed them me searching through reviews, looking for information, and trying different words, and trying to find out like, you know, is this place quiet? Is it comfortable? And then I put all the same data into our platform, and I showed them the world of difference you can have when you start asking that question wholeheartedly, and getting real information that doesn't have anything to do with the words you asked, but is really focused on the meaning. You know, when I asked like, "Is it quiet?" You know, answers would come back like, "The wind whispered through the trees peacefully," and you know, it's like nothing to do with quiet in the literal word sense, but in the meaning sense, everything to do with it. And that that was magical even for them, to see that. >> Well you guys are the front end of this big wave. Congratulations on the startup, Amr. I know you guys got great pedigree in big data, and you've got a great team, and congratulations. Vectara is the name of the company, check 'em out. Again, the startup boom is coming. This will be one of the major waves, generative AI is here. I think we'll look back, and it will be pointed out as a major inflection point in the industry. >> Absolutely. >> There's not a lot of hype behind that. People are are seeing it, experts are. So it's going to be fun, thanks for watching. >> Thanks John. (soft music)

(upbeat music) >> Okay, welcome back everyone at Supercloud 2 event, live here in Palo Alto, theCUBE Studios live stage performance, virtually syndicating it all over the world. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante here as Cube alumni, and special influencer guest, Howie Xu, VP of Machine Learning and Zscaler, also part-time as a CUBE analyst 'cause he is that good. Comes on all the time. You're basically a CUBE analyst as well. Thanks for coming on. >> Thanks for inviting me. >> John: Technically, you're not really a CUBE analyst, but you're kind of like a CUBE analyst. >> Happy New Year to everyone. >> Dave: Great to see you. >> Great to see you, Dave and John. >> John: We've been talking about ChatGPT online. You wrote a great post about it being more like Amazon, not like Google. >> Howie: More than just Google Search. >> More than Google Search. Oh, it's going to compete with Google Search, which it kind of does a little bit, but more its infrastructure. So a clever point, good segue into this conversation, because this is kind of the beginning of these kinds of next gen things we're going to see. Things where it's like an obvious next gen, it's getting real. Kind of like seeing the browser for the first time, Mosaic browser. Whoa, this internet thing's real. I think this is that moment and Supercloud like enablement is coming. So this has been a big part of the Supercloud kind of theme. >> Yeah, you talk about Supercloud, you talk about, you know, AI, ChatGPT. I really think the ChatGPT is really another Netscape moment, the browser moment. Because if you think about internet technology, right? It was brewing for 20 years before early 90s. Not until you had a, you know, browser, people realize, "Wow, this is how wonderful this technology could do." Right? You know, all the wonderful things. Then you have Yahoo and Amazon. I think we have brewing, you know, the AI technology for, you know, quite some time. Even then, you know, neural networks, deep learning. But not until ChatGPT came along, people realize, "Wow, you know, the user interface, user experience could be that great," right? So I really think, you know, if you look at the last 30 years, there is a browser moment, there is iPhone moment. I think ChatGPT moment is as big as those. >> Dave: What do you see as the intersection of things like ChatGPT and the Supercloud? Of course, the media's going to focus, journalists are going to focus on all the negatives and the privacy. Okay. You know we're going to get by that, right? Always do. Where do you see the Supercloud and sort of the distributed data fitting in with ChatGPT? Does it use that as a data source? What's the link? >> Howie: I think there are number of use cases. One of the use cases, we talked about why we even have Supercloud because of the complexity, because of the, you know, heterogeneous nature of different clouds. In order for me as a developer, in order for me to create applications, I have so many things to worry about, right? It's a complexity. But with ChatGPT, with the AI, I don't have to worry about it, right? Those kind of details will be taken care of by, you know, the underlying layer. So we have been talking about on this show, you know, over the last, what, year or so about the Supercloud, hey, defining that, you know, API layer spanning across, you know, multiple clouds. I think that will be happening. However, for a lot of the things, that will be more hidden, right? A lot of that will be automated by the bots. You know, we were just talking about it right before the show. One of the profound statement I heard from Adrian Cockcroft about 10 years ago was, "Hey Howie, you know, at Netflix, right? You know, IT is just one API call away." That's a profound statement I heard about a decade ago. I think next decade, right? You know, the IT is just one English language away, right? So when it's one English language away, it's no longer as important, API this, API that. You still need API just like hardware, right? You still need all of those things. That's going to be more hidden. The high level thing will be more, you know, English language or the language, right? Any language for that matter. >> Dave: And so through language, you'll tap services that live across the Supercloud, is what you're saying? >> Howie: You just tell what you want, what you desire, right? You know, the bots will help you to figure out where the complexity is, right? You know, like you said, a lot of criticism about, "Hey, ChatGPT doesn't do this, doesn't do that." But if you think about how to break things down, right? For instance, right, you know, ChatGPT doesn't have Microsoft stock price today, obviously, right? However, you can ask ChatGPT to write a program for you, retrieve the Microsoft stock price, (laughs) and then just run it, right? >> Dave: Yeah. >> So the thing to think about- >> John: It's only going to get better. It's only going to get better. >> The thing people kind of unfairly criticize ChatGPT is it doesn't do this. But can you not break down humans' task into smaller things and get complex things to be done by the ChatGPT? I think we are there already, you know- >> John: That to me is the real game changer. That's the assembly of atomic elements at the top of the stack, whether the interface is voice or some programmatic gesture based thing, you know, wave your hand or- >> Howie: One of the analogy I used in my blog was, you know, each person, each professional now is a quarterback. And we suddenly have, you know, a lot more linebacks or you know, any backs to work for you, right? For free even, right? You know, and then that's sort of, you should think about it. You are the quarterback of your day-to-day job, right? Your job is not to do everything manually yourself. >> Dave: You call the play- >> Yes. >> Dave: And they execute. Do your job. >> Yes, exactly. >> Yeah, all the players are there. All the elves are in the North Pole making the toys, Dave, as we say. But this is the thing, I want to get your point. This change is going to require a new kind of infrastructure software relationship, a new kind of operating runtime, a new kind of assembler, a new kind of loader link things. This very operating systems kind of concepts. >> Data intensive, right? How to process the data, how to, you know, process so gigantic data in parallel, right? That's actually a tough job, right? So if you think about ChatGPT, why OpenAI is ahead of the game, right? You know, Google may not want to acknowledge it, right? It's not necessarily they do, you know, not have enough data scientist, but the software engineering pieces, you know, behind it, right? To train the model, to actually do all those things in parallel, to do all those things in a cost effective way. So I think, you know, a lot of those still- >> Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question because we've had this conversation privately, but I want to do it while we're on stage here. Where are all the alpha geeks and developers and creators and entrepreneurs going to gravitate to? You know, in every wave, you see it in crypto, all the alphas went into crypto. Now I think with ChatGPT, you're going to start to see, like, "Wow, it's that moment." A lot of people are going to, you know, scrum and do startups. CTOs will invent stuff. There's a lot of invention, a lot of computer science and customer requirements to figure out. That's new. Where are the alpha entrepreneurs going to go to? What do you think they're going to gravitate to? If you could point to the next layer to enable this super environment, super app environment, Supercloud. 'Cause there's a lot to do to enable what you just said. >> Howie: Right. You know, if you think about using internet as the analogy, right? You know, in the early 90s, internet came along, browser came along. You had two kind of companies, right? One is Amazon, the other one is walmart.com. And then there were company, like maybe GE or whatnot, right? Really didn't take advantage of internet that much. I think, you know, for entrepreneurs, suddenly created the Yahoo, Amazon of the ChatGPT native era. That's what we should be all excited about. But for most of the Fortune 500 companies, your job is to surviving sort of the big revolution. So you at least need to do your walmart.com sooner than later, right? (laughs) So not be like GE, right? You know, hand waving, hey, I do a lot of the internet, but you know, when you look back last 20, 30 years, what did they do much with leveraging the- >> So you think they're going to jump in, they're going to build service companies or SaaS tech companies or Supercloud companies? >> Howie: Okay, so there are two type of opportunities from that perspective. One is, you know, the OpenAI ish kind of the companies, I think the OpenAI, the game is still open, right? You know, it's really Close AI today. (laughs) >> John: There's room for competition, you mean? >> There's room for competition, right. You know, you can still spend you know, 50, $100 million to build something interesting. You know, there are company like Cohere and so on and so on. There are a bunch of companies, I think there is that. And then there are companies who's going to leverage those sort of the new AI primitives. I think, you know, we have been talking about AI forever, but finally, finally, it's no longer just good, but also super useful. I think, you know, the time is now. >> John: And if you have the cloud behind you, what do you make the Amazon do differently? 'Cause Amazon Web Services is only going to grow with this. It's not going to get smaller. There's more horsepower to handle, there's more needs. >> Howie: Well, Microsoft already showed what's the future, right? You know, you know, yes, there is a kind of the container, you know, the serverless that will continue to grow. But the future is really not about- >> John: Microsoft's shown the future? >> Well, showing that, you know, working with OpenAI, right? >> Oh okay. >> They already said that, you know, we are going to have ChatGPT service. >> $10 billion, I think they're putting it. >> $10 billion putting, and also open up the Open API services, right? You know, I actually made a prediction that Microsoft future hinges on OpenAI. I think, you know- >> John: They believe that $10 billion bet. >> Dave: Yeah. $10 billion bet. So I want to ask you a question. It's somewhat academic, but it's relevant. For a number of years, it looked like having first mover advantage wasn't an advantage. PCs, spreadsheets, the browser, right? Social media, Friendster, right? Mobile. Apple wasn't first to mobile. But that's somewhat changed. The cloud, AWS was first. You could debate whether or not, but AWS okay, they have first mover advantage. Crypto, Bitcoin, first mover advantage. Do you think OpenAI will have first mover advantage? >> It certainly has its advantage today. I think it's year two. I mean, I think the game is still out there, right? You know, we're still in the first inning, early inning of the game. So I don't think that the game is over for the rest of the players, whether the big players or the OpenAI kind of the, sort of competitors. So one of the VCs actually asked me the other day, right? "Hey, how much money do I need to spend, invest, to get, you know, another shot to the OpenAI sort of the level?" You know, I did a- (laughs) >> Line up. >> That's classic VC. "How much does it cost me to replicate?" >> I'm pretty sure he asked the question to a bunch of guys, right? >> Good luck with that. (laughs) >> So we kind of did some napkin- >> What'd you come up with? (laughs) >> $100 million is the order of magnitude that I came up with, right? You know, not a billion, not 10 million, right? So 100 million. >> John: Hundreds of millions. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. 100 million order of magnitude is what I came up with. You know, we can get into details, you know, in other sort of the time, but- >> Dave: That's actually not that much if you think about it. >> Howie: Exactly. So when he heard me articulating why is that, you know, he's thinking, right? You know, he actually, you know, asked me, "Hey, you know, there's this company. Do you happen to know this company? Can I reach out?" You know, those things. So I truly believe it's not a billion or 10 billion issue, it's more like 100. >> John: And also, your other point about referencing the internet revolution as a good comparable. The other thing there is online user population was a big driver of the growth of that. So what's the equivalent here for online user population for AI? Is it more apps, more users? I mean, we're still early on, it's first inning. >> Yeah. We're kind of the, you know- >> What's the key metric for success of this sector? Do you have a read on that? >> I think the, you know, the number of users is a good metrics, but I think it's going to be a lot of people are going to use AI services without even knowing they're using it, right? You know, I think a lot of the applications are being already built on top of OpenAI, and then they are kind of, you know, help people to do marketing, legal documents, you know, so they're already inherently OpenAI kind of the users already. So I think yeah. >> Well, Howie, we've got to wrap, but I really appreciate you coming on. I want to give you a last minute to wrap up here. In your experience, and you've seen many waves of innovation. You've even had your hands in a lot of the big waves past three inflection points. And obviously, machine learning you're doing now, you're deep end. Why is this Supercloud movement, this wave of Supercloud and the discussion of this next inflection point, why is it so important? For the folks watching, why should they be paying attention to this particular moment in time? Could you share your super clip on Supercloud? >> Howie: Right. So this is simple from my point of view. So why do you even have cloud to begin with, right? IT is too complex, too complex to operate or too expensive. So there's a newer model. There is a better model, right? Let someone else operate it, there is elasticity out of it, right? That's great. Until you have multiple vendors, right? Many vendors even, you know, we're talking about kind of how to make multiple vendors look like the same, but frankly speaking, even one vendor has, you know, thousand services. Now it's kind of getting, what Kid was talking about what, cloud chaos, right? It's the evolution. You know, the history repeats itself, right? You know, you have, you know, next great things and then too many great things, and then people need to sort of abstract this out. So it's almost that you must do this. But I think how to abstract this out is something that at this time, AI is going to help a lot, right? You know, like I mentioned, right? A lot of the abstraction, you don't have to think about API anymore. I bet 10 years from now, you know, IT is one language away, not API away. So think about that world, right? So Supercloud in, in my opinion, sure, you kind of abstract things out. You have, you know, consistent layers. But who's going to do that? Is that like we all agreed upon the model, agreed upon those APIs? Not necessary. There are certain, you know, truth in that, but there are other truths, let bots take care of, right? Whether you know, I want some X happens, whether it's going to be done by Azure, by AWS, by GCP, bots will figure out at a given time with certain contacts with your security requirement, posture requirement. I'll think that out. >> John: That's awesome. And you know, Dave, you and I have been talking about this. We think scale is the new ratification. If you have first mover advantage, I'll see the benefit, but scale is a huge thing. OpenAI, AWS. >> Howie: Yeah. Every day, we are using OpenAI. Today, we are labeling data for them. So you know, that's a little bit of the- (laughs) >> John: Yeah. >> First mover advantage that other people don't have, right? So it's kind of scary. So I'm very sure that Google is a little bit- (laughs) >> When we do our super AI event, you're definitely going to be keynoting. (laughs) >> Howie: I think, you know, we're talking about Supercloud, you know, before long, we are going to talk about super intelligent cloud. (laughs) >> I'm super excited, Howie, about this. Thanks for coming on. Great to see you, Howie Xu. Always a great analyst for us contributing to the community. VP of Machine Learning and Zscaler, industry legend and friend of theCUBE. Thanks for coming on and sharing really, really great advice and insight into what this next wave means. This Supercloud is the next wave. "If you're not on it, you're driftwood," says Pat Gelsinger. So you're going to see a lot more discussion. We'll be back more here live in Palo Alto after this short break. >> Thank you. (upbeat music)

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

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

>> 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)

from the cube studios in palo alto in boston bringing you data-driven insights from the cube and etr this is breaking analysis with dave vellante you know we've often said that the next 10 years in cloud computing won't be like the last ten cloud has firmly planted its footprint on the other side of the chasm with the momentum of the entire multi-trillion dollar tech business behind it both sellers and buyers are leaning in by adopting cloud technologies and many are building their own value layers on top of cloud in the coming years we expect innovation will continue to coalesce around the three big u.s clouds plus alibaba in apac with the ecosystem building value on top of the hardware saw tooling provided by the hyperscalers now importantly we don't see this as a race to the bottom rather our expectation is that the large public cloud players will continue to take cost out of their platforms through innovation automation and integration while other cloud providers and the ecosystem including traditional companies that buy it mine opportunities in their respective markets as matt baker of dell is fond of saying this is not a zero sum game welcome to this week's wikibon cube insights powered by etr in this breaking analysis we'll update you on our latest projections in the cloud market we'll share some new etr survey data with some surprising nuggets and drill into this the important cloud database landscape first we want to take a look at what people are talking about in cloud and what's been in the recent news with the exception of alibaba all the large cloud players have reported earnings google continues to focus on growth at the expense of its profitability google reported that it's cloud business which includes applications like google workspace grew 45 percent to five and a half billion dollars but it had an operating loss of 890 billion now since thomas curion joined google to run its cloud business google has increased head count in its cloud business from 25 000 25 000 people now it's up to 40 000 in an effort to catch up to the two leaders but playing catch up is expensive now to put this into perspective let's go back to aws's revenue in q1 2018 when the company did 5.4 billion so almost exactly the same size as google's current total cloud business and aws is growing faster at the time at 49 don't forget google includes in its cloud numbers a big chunk of high margin software aws at the time had an operating profit of 1.4 billion that quarter around 26 of its revenues so it was a highly profitable business about as profitable as cisco's overall business which again is a great business this is what happens when you're number three and didn't get your head out of your ads fast enough now in fairness google still gets high marks on the quality of its technology according to corey quinn of the duck bill group amazon and google cloud are what he called neck and neck with regard to reliability with microsoft azure trailing because of significant disruptions in the past these comments were made last week in a bloomberg article despite some recent high-profile outages on aws not surprisingly a microsoft spokesperson said that the company's cloud offers industry-leading reliability and that gives customers payment credits after some outages thank you turning to microsoft and cloud news microsoft's overall cloud business surpassed 22 billion in the december quarter up 32 percent year on year like google microsoft includes application software and sas offerings in its cloud numbers and gives little nuggets of guidance on its azure infrastructure as a service business by the way we estimate that azure comprises about 45 percent of microsoft's overall cloud business which we think hit a 40 billion run rate last quarter microsoft guided in its earning call that recent declines in the azure growth rates will reverse in q1 and that implies sequential growth for azure and finally it was announced that the ftc not the doj will review microsoft's announced 75 billion acquisition of activision blizzard it appears ftc chair lena khan wants to take this one on herself she of course has been very outspoken about the power of big tech companies and in recent a recent cnbc interview suggested that the u.s government's actions were a meaningful contributor back then to curbing microsoft's power in the 90s i personally found that dubious just ask netscape wordperfect novell lotus and spc the maker of harvard presentation graphics how effective the government was in curbing microsoft power generally my take is that the u s government has had a dismal record regulating tech companies most notably ibm and microsoft and it was market forces company hubris complacency and self-inflicted wounds not government intervention these were far more effective than the government now of course if companies are breaking the law they should be punished but the u.s government hasn't been very productive in its actions and the unintended consequences of regulation could be detrimental to the u.s competitiveness in the race with china but i digress lastly in the news amazon announced earnings thursday and the company's value increased by 191 billion dollars on friday that's a record valuation gain for u.s stocks aws amazon's profit engine grew 40 percent year on year for the quarter it closed the year at 62 billion dollars in revenue and at a 71 billion dollar revenue run rate aws is now larger than ibm which without kindrel is at a 67 billion dollar run rate just for context ibm's revenue in 2011 was 107 billion dollars now there's a conversation going on in the media and social that in order to continue this growth and compete with microsoft that aws has to get into the sas business and offer applications we don't think that's the right strategy for amp from for amazon in the near future rather we see them enabling developers to compete in that business finally amazon disclosed that 48 of its top 50 customers are using graviton 2 instances why is this important because aws is well ahead of the competition in custom silicon chips is and is on a price performance curve that is far better than alternatives especially those based on x86 this is one of the reasons why we think this business is not a race to the bottom aws is being followed by google microsoft and alibaba in terms of developing custom silicon and will continue to drive down their internal cost structures and deliver price performance equal to or better than the historical moore's law curves so that's the recent news for the big u.s cloud providers let's now take a look at how the year ended for the big four hyperscalers and look ahead to next year here's a table we've shown this view before it shows the revenue estimates for worldwide is and paths generated by aws microsoft alibaba and google now remember amazon and alibaba they share clean eye ass figures whereas microsoft and alphabet only give us these nuggets that we have to interpret and we correlate those tidbits with other data that we gather we're one of the few outlets that actually attempts to make these apples to apples comparisons there's a company called synergy research there's another firm that does this but i really can't map to their numbers their gcp figures look far too high and azure appears somewhat overestimated and they do include other stuff like hosted private cloud services but it's another data point that you can use okay back to the table we've slightly adjusted our gcp figures down based on interpreting some of alphabet's statements and other survey data only alibaba has yet to announce earnings so we'll stick to a 2021 market size of about 120 billion dollars that's a 41 growth rate relative to 2020 and we expect that figure to increase by 38 percent to 166 billion in 2022 now we'll discuss this a bit later but these four companies have created an opportunity for the ecosystem to build what we're calling super clouds on top of this infrastructure and we're seeing it happen it was increasingly obvious at aws re invent last year and we feel it will pick up momentum in the coming months and years a little bit more on that later now here's a graphical view of the quarterly revenue shares for these four companies notice that aws has reversed its share erosion and is trending up slightly aws has accelerated its growth rate four quarters in a row now it accounted for 52 percent of the big four hyperscaler revenue last year and that figure was nearly 54 in the fourth quarter azure finished the year with 32 percent of the hyper scale revenue in 2021 which dropped to 30 percent in q4 and you can see gcp and alibaba they're neck and neck fighting for the bronze medal by the way in our recent 2022 predictions post we said google cloud platform would surpass alibaba this year but given the recent trimming of our numbers google's got some work to do for that prediction to be correct okay just to put a bow on the wikibon market data let's look at the quarterly growth rates and you'll see the compression trends there this data tracks quarterly revenue growth rates back to 20 q1 2019 and you can see the steady downward trajectory and the reversal that aws experienced in q1 of last year now remember microsoft guided for sequential growth and azure so that orange line should trend back up and given gcp's much smaller and big go to market investments that we talked about we'd like to see an acceleration there as well the thing about aws is just remarkable that it's able to accelerate growth at a 71 billion run rate business and alibaba you know is a bit more opaque and likely still reeling from the crackdown of the chinese government we're admittedly not as close to the china market but we'll continue to watch from afar as that steep decline in growth rate is somewhat of a concern okay let's get into the survey data from etr and to do so we're going to take some time series views on some of the select cloud platforms that are showing spending momentum in the etr data set you know etr uses a metric we talked about this a lot called net score to measure that spending velocity of products and services netscore basically asks customers are you spending more less or the same on a platform and a vendor and then it subtracts the lesses from the moors and that yields a net score this chart shows net score for five cloud platforms going back to january 2020. note in the table that the table we've inserted inside that chart shows the net score and shared n the latter metric indicates the number of mentions in the data set and all the platforms we've listed here show strong presence in the survey that red dotted line at 40 percent that indicates spending is at an elevated level and you can see azure and aws and vmware cloud on aws as well as gcp are all nicely elevated and bounding off their october figures indicating continued cloud momentum overall but the big surprise in these figures is the steady climb and the steep bounce up from oracle which came in just under the 40 mark now one quarter is not necessarily a trend but going back to january 2020 the oracle peaks keep getting higher and higher so we definitely want to keep watching this now here's a look at some of the other cloud platforms in the etr survey the chart here shows the same time series and we've now brought in some of the big hybrid players notably vmware cloud which is vcf and other on-prem solutions red hat openstack which as we've reported in the past is still popular in telcos who want to build their own cloud we're also starting to see hpe with green lake and dell with apex show up more and ibm which years ago acquired soft layer which was really essentially a bare metal hosting company and over the years ibm cobbled together its own public cloud ibm is now racing after hybrid cloud using red hat openshift as the linchpin to that strategy now what this data tells us first of all these platforms they don't have the same presence in the data set as do the previous players vmware is the one possible exception but other than vmware these players don't have the spending velocity shown in the previous chart and most are below the red line hpe and dell are interesting and notable in that they're transitioning their early private cloud businesses to dell gr sorry hpe green lake and dell apex respectively and finally after years of kind of staring at their respective navels in in cloud and milking their legacy on-prem models they're finally building out cloud-like infrastructure for their customers they're leaning into cloud and marketing it in a more sensible and attractive fashion for customers so we would expect these figures are going to bounce around for a little while for those two as they settle into a groove and we'll watch that closely now ibm is in the process of a complete do-over arvin krishna inherited three generations of leadership with a professional services mindset now in the post gerschner gerstner era both sam palmisano and ginny rometty held on far too long to ibm's service heritage and protected the past from the future they missed the cloud opportunity and they forced the acquisition of red hat to position the company for the hybrid cloud remedy tried to shrink to grow but never got there krishna is moving faster and with the kindred spin is promising mid-single-digit growth which would be a welcome change ibm is a lot of work to do and we would expect its net score figures as well to bounce around as customers transition to the future all right let's take a look at all these different players in context these are all the clouds that we just talked about in a two-dimensional view the vertical axis is net score or spending momentum and the horizontal axis is market share or presence or pervasiveness in the data set a couple of call-outs that we'd like to make here first the data confirms what we've been saying what everybody's been saying aws and microsoft stand alone with a huge presence many tens of billions of dollars in revenue yet they are both well above the 40 line and show spending momentum and they're well ahead of gcp on both dimensions second vmware while much smaller is showing legitimate momentum which correlates to its public statements alibaba the alibaba in this survey really doesn't have enough sample to make hardcore conclusions um you can see hpe and dell and ibm you know similarly they got a little bit more presence in the data set but they clearly have some work to do what you're seeing there is their transitioning their legacy install bases oracle's the big surprise look what oracle was in the january survey and how they've shot up recently now we'll see if this this holds up let's posit some possibilities as to why it really starts with the fact that oracle is the king of mission critical apps now if you haven't seen video on twitter you have to check it out it's it's hilarious we're not going to run the video here but the link will be in our post but i'll give you the short version some really creative person they overlaid a data migration narrative on top of this one tooth guy who speaks in spanish gibberish but the setup is he's a pm he's a he's a a project manager at a bank and aws came into the bank this of course all hypothetical and said we can move all your apps to the cloud in 12 months and the guy says but wait we're running mission critical apps on exadata and aws says there's nothing special about exadata and he starts howling and slapping his knee and laughing and giggling and talking about the 23 year old senior engineer who says we're going to do this with microservices and he could tell he was he was 23 because he was wearing expensive sneakers and what a nightmare they encountered migrating their environment very very very funny video and anyone who's ever gone through a major migration of mission critical systems this is gonna hit home it's funny not funny the point is it's really painful to move off of oracle and oracle for all its haters and its faults is really the best environment for mission critical systems and customers know it so what's happening is oracle's building out the best cloud for oracle database and it has a lot of really profitable customers running on-prem that the company is migrating to oracle cloud infrastructure oci it's a safer bet than ripping it and putting it into somebody else's cloud that doesn't have all the specialized hardware and oracle knowledge because you can get the same integrated exadata hardware and software to run your database in the oracle cloud it's frankly an easier and much more logical migration path for a lot of customers and that's possibly what's happening here not to mention oracle jacks up the license price nearly doubles the license price if you run on other clouds so not only is oracle investing to optimize its cloud infrastructure it spends money on r d we've always talked about that really focused on mission critical applications but it's making it more cost effective by penalizing customers that run oracle elsewhere so this possibly explains why when the gartner magic quadrant for cloud databases comes out it's got oracle so well positioned you can see it there for yourself oracle's position is right there with aws and microsoft and ahead of google on the right-hand side is gartner's critical capabilities ratings for dbms and oracle leads in virtually all of the categories gartner track this is for operational dvms so it's kind of a narrow view it's like the red stack sweet spot now this graph it shows traditional transactions but gartner has oracle ahead of all vendors in stream processing operational intelligence real-time augmented transactions now you know gartner they're like old name framers and i say that lovingly so maybe they're a bit biased and they might be missing some of the emerging opportunities that for example like snowflake is pioneering but it's hard to deny that oracle for its business is making the right moves in cloud by optimizing for the red stack there's little question in our view when it comes to mission critical we think gartner's analysis is correct however there's this other really exciting landscape emerging in cloud data and we don't want it to be a blind spot snowflake calls it the data cloud jamactagani calls it data mesh others are using the term data fabric databricks calls it data lake house so so does oracle by the way and look the terminology is going to evolve and most of the action action that's happening is in the cloud quite frankly and this chart shows a select group of database and data warehouse companies and we've filtered the data for aws azure and gcp customers accounts so how are these accounts or companies that were showing how these vendors were showing doing in aws azure and gcp accounts and to make the cut you had to have a minimum of 50 mentions in the etr survey so unfortunately data bricks didn't make it just not enough presence in the data set quite quite yet but just to give you a sense snowflake is represented in this cut with 131 accounts aws 240 google 108 microsoft 407 huge [ __ ] 117 cloudera 52 just made the cut ibm 92 and oracle 208. again these are shared accounts filtered by customers running aws azure or gcp the chart shows a net score lime green is new ads forest green is spending more gray is flat spending the pink is spending less and the bright red is defection again you subtract the red from the green and you get net score and you can see that snowflake as we reported last week is tops in the data set with a net score in the 80s and virtually no red and even by the way single digit flat spend aws google and microsoft are all prominent in the data set as is [ __ ] and snowflake as i just mentioned and they're all elevated over the 40 mark cloudera yeah what can we say once they were a high flyer they're really not in the news anymore with anything compelling other than they just you know took the company private so maybe they can re-emerge at some point with a stronger story i hope so because as you can see they actually have some new additions and spending momentum in the green just a lot of customers holding steady and a bit too much red but they're in the positive territory at least with uh plus 17 percent unlike ibm and oracle and this is the flip side of the coin ibm they're knee-deep really chest deep in the middle of a major transformation we've said before arvind krishna's strategy and vision is at least achievable prune the portfolio i.e spin out kindrel sell watson health hold serve with the mainframe and deal with those product cycles shift the mix to software and use red hat to win the day in hybrid red hat is working for ibm's growing well into the double digits unfortunately it's not showing up in this chart with little database momentum in aws azure and gcp accounts zero new ads not enough acceleration and spending a big gray middle in nearly a quarter of the base in the red ibm's data and ai business only grew three percent this last quarter and the word database wasn't even mentioned once on ibm's earnings call this has to be a concern as you can see how important database is to aws microsoft google and the momentum it's giving companies like snowflake and [ __ ] and others which brings us to oracle with a net score of minus 12. so how do you square the momentum in oracle cloud spending and the strong ratings and databases from gartner with this picture good question and i would say the following first look at the profile people aren't adding oracle new a large portion of the base 25 is reducing spend by 6 or worse and there's a decent percentage of the base migrating off oracle with a big fat middle that's flat and this accounts for the poor net score overall but what etr doesn't track is how much is being spent rather it's an account based model and oracle is heavily weighted toward big spenders running mission critical applications and databases oracle's non-gaap operating margins are comparable to ibm's gross margins on a percentage basis so a very profitable company with a big license and maintenance in stall basin oracle has focused its r d investments into cloud erp database automation they've got vertical sas and they've got this integrated hardware and software story and this drives differentiation for the company but as you can see in this chart it has a legacy install base that is constantly trying to minimize its license costs okay here's a little bit of different view on the same data we expand the picture with the two dimensions of net score on the y-axis and market share or pervasiveness on the horizontal axis and the table insert is how the data gets plotted y and x respectively not much to add here other than to say the picture continues to look strong for those companies above the 40 line that are focused and their focus and have figured out a clear cloud strategy and aren't necessarily dealing with a big install base the exception of course is is microsoft and the ones below the line definitely have parts of their portfolio which have solid momentum but they're fighting the inertia of a large install base that moves very slowly again microsoft had the advantage of really azure and migrating those customers very quickly okay so let's wrap it up starting with the big three cloud players aws is accelerating and innovating great example is custom silicon with nitro and graviton and other chips that will help the company address concerns related to the race to the bottom it's not a race to zero aws we believe will let its developers go after the sas business and for the most part aws will offer solutions that address large vertical markets think call centers the edge remains a wild card for aws and all the cloud players really aws believes that in the fullness of time all workloads will run in the public cloud now it's hard for us to imagine the tesla autonomous vehicles running in the public cloud but maybe aws will redefine what it means by its cloud microsoft well they're everywhere and they're expanding further now into gaming and the metaverse when he became ceo in 2014 many people said that satya should ditch xbox just as an aside the joke among many oracle employees at the time was that safra katz would buy her kids and her nieces and her nephews and her kids friends everybody xbox game consoles for the holidays because microsoft lost money for everyone that they shipped well nadella has stuck with it and he sees an opportunity to expand through online gaming communities one of his first deals as ceo was minecraft now the acquisition of activision will make microsoft the world's number three gaming company by revenue behind only 10 cent and sony all this will be powered by azure and drive more compute storage ai and tooling now google for its part is battling to stay relevant in the conversation luckily it can afford the massive losses it endures in cloud because the company's advertising business is so profitable don't expect as many have speculated that google is going to bail on cloud that would be a huge mistake as the market is more than large enough for three players which brings us to the rest of the pack cloud ecosystems generally and aws specifically are exploding the idea of super cloud that is a layer of value that spans multiple clouds hides the underlying complexity and brings new value that the cloud players aren't delivering that's starting to bubble to the top and legacy players are staying close to their customers and fighting to keep them spending and it's working dell hpe cisco and smaller predominantly on-plan prem players like pure storage they continue to do pretty well they're just not as sexy as the big cloud players the real interesting activity it's really happening in the ecosystem of companies and firms within industries that are transforming to create their own digital businesses virtually all of them are running a portion of their offerings on the public cloud but often connecting to on-premises workloads and data think goldman sachs making that work and creating a great experience across all environments is a big opportunity and we're seeing it form right before our eyes don't miss it okay that's it for now thanks to my colleague stephanie chan who helped research this week's topics remember these episodes are all available as podcasts wherever you listen just search breaking analysis podcast check out etr's website at etr dot ai and also we publish a full report every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com you can get in touch with me email me at david.velante siliconangle.com you can dm me at divalante or comment on my linkedin post this is dave vellante for the cube insights powered by etr have a great week stay safe be well and we'll see you next time [Music] you

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCube and ETR, this is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> When a piece of digital art sells for $69.3 million, more than has ever been paid for works, by Gauguin or Salvador Dali, making it created the third most expensive living artists in the world. One can't help but take notice and ask, what is going on? The latest craze around NFTs may feel a bit bubblicious, but it's yet another sign, that the digital age is now fully upon us. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon's CUBE insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we want to take a look at some of the trends, that may be difficult for observers and investors to understand, but we think offer significant insights to the future and possibly some opportunities for young investors many of whom are fans of this program. And how the trends may relate to enterprise tech. Okay, so this guy Beeple is now the hottest artist on the planet. That's his Twitter profile. That picture on the inset. His name is Mike Winkelmann. He is actually a normal looking dude, but that's the picture he chose for his Twitter. This collage reminds me of the Million Dollar Homepage. You may already know the story, but many of you may not. Back in 2005 a college kid from England named Alex Tew, T-E-W created The Million Dollar Homepage to fund his education. And his idea was to create a website with a million pixels, and sell ads at a dollar for each pixel. Guess how much money he raised. A million bucks, right? No, wrong. He raised $1,037,100. How so you ask? Well, he auctioned off the last 1000 pixels on eBay, which fetched an additional $38,000. Crazy, right? Well, maybe not. Pretty creative in a way, way early sign of things to come. Now, I'm not going to go deep into NFTs, and explain the justification behind them. There's a lot of material that's been published that can do justice to the topic better than I can. But here are the basics, NFTs stands for Non-Fungible Tokens. They are digital representations of assets that exist in a blockchain. Now, each token as a unique and immutable identifier, and it uses cryptography to ensure its authenticity. NFTs by the name, they're not fungible. So, unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum or other cryptocurrencies, which can be traded on a like-for-like basis, in other words, if you and I each own one bitcoin we know exactly how much each of our bitcoins is worth at any point of time. Non-Fungible Tokens each have their own unique values. So, they're not comparable on a like-to-like basis. But what's the point of this? Well, NFTs can be applied to any property, identities tweets, videos, we're seeing collectables, digital art, pretty much anything. And it's really. The use cases are unlimited. And NFTs can streamline transactions, and they can be bought and sold very efficiently without the need for a trusted third party involved. Now, the other benefit is the probability of fraud, is greatly reduced. So where do NFTs fit as an asset class? Well, they're definitely a new type of asset. And again, I'm not going to try to justify their existence, but I want to talk about the choices, that investors have in the market today. The other day, I was on a call with Jay Po. He is a VC and a Principal at a company called Stage 2 Capital. He's a former Bessemer VC and one of the sharper investors around. And he was talking about the choices that investors have and he gave a nice example that I want to share with you and try to apply here. Now, as an investor, you have alternatives, of course we're showing here a few with their year to date charts. Now, as an example, you can buy Amazon stock. Now, if you bought just about exactly a year ago you did really well, you probably saw around an 80% return or more. But if you want to jump in today, your mindset might be, hmm, well, okay. Amazon, they're going to be around for a long time, so it's kind of low risk and I like the stock, but you're probably going to get, well let's say, maybe a 10% annual return over the longterm, 15% or maybe less maybe single digits, but, maybe more than that but it's unlikely that any kind of reasonable timeframe within any reasonable timeframe you're going to get a 10X return. In order to get that type of return on invested capital, Amazon would have to become a $16 trillion valued company. So, you sit there, you asked yourself, what's the probability that Amazon goes out of business? Well, that's pretty low, right? And what are the chances it becomes a $16 trillion company over the next several years? Well, it's probably more likely that it continues to grow at that more stable rate that I talked about. Okay, now let's talk about Snowflake. Now, as you know, we've covered the company quite extensively. We watched this company grow from an early stage startup and then saw its valuation increase steadily as a private company, but you know, even early last year it was valued around $12 billion, I think in February, and as late as mid September right before the IPO news hit that Marc Benioff and Warren Buffett were going to put in $250 million each at the IPO or just after the IPO and it was projected that Snowflake's valuation could go over $20 billion at that point. And on day one after the IPO Snowflake, closed worth more than $50 billion, the stock opened at 120, but unless you knew a guy, you had to hold your nose and buy on day one. And you know, maybe got it at 240, maybe you got it at 250, you might have got it at higher and at the time you might recall, I said, You're likely going to get a better price than on day one, which is usually the case with most IPOs, stock today's around 230. But you look at Snowflake today and if you want to buy in, you look at it and say, Okay, well I like the company, it's probably still overvalued, but I can see the company's value growing substantially over the next several years, maybe doubling in the near to midterm [mumbles] hit more than a hundred billion dollar valuation back as recently as December, so that's certainly feasible. The company is not likely to flame out because it's highly valued, I have to probably be patient for a couple of years. But you know, let's say I liked the management, I liked the company, maybe the company gets into the $200 billion range over time and I can make a decent return, but to get a 10X return on Snowflake you have to get to a valuation of over a half a trillion. Now, to get there, if it gets there it's going to become one of the next great software companies of our time. And you know, frankly if it gets there I think it's going to go to a trillion. So, if that's what your bet is then you know, you would be happy with that of course. But what's the likelihood? As an investor you have to evaluate that, what's the probability? So, it's a lower risk investment in Snowflake but maybe more likely that Snowflake, you know, they run into competition or the market shifts, maybe they get into the $200 billion range, but it really has to transform the industry execute for you to get in to that 10 bagger territory. Okay, now let's look at a different asset that is cryptocurrency called Compound, way more risky. But Compound is a decentralized protocol that allows you to lend and borrow cryptocurrencies. Now, I'm not saying go out and buy compound but just as a thought exercise is it's got an asset here with a lower valuation, probably much higher upside, but much higher risk. But so for Compound to get to 10X return it's got to get to $20 billion valuation. Now, maybe compound isn't the right asset for your cup of tea, but there are many cryptos that have made it that far and if you do your research and your homework you could find a project that's much, much earlier stage that yes, is higher risk but has a much higher upside that you can participate in. So, this is how investors, all investors really look at their choices and make decisions. And the more sophisticated investors, they're going to use detailed metrics and analyze things like MOIC, Multiple on Invested Capital and IRR, which is Internal Rate of Return, do TAM analysis, Total Available Market. They're going to look at competition. They're going to look at detailed company models in ARR and Churn rates and so forth. But one of the things we really want to talk about today and we brought this up at the snowflake IPO is if you were Buffet or Benioff and you had to, you know, quarter of a dollars to put in you could get an almost guaranteed return with your late in the game, but pre IPO money or a look if you were Mike Speiser or one of the earlier VCs or even someone like Jeremy Burton who was part of the inside network you could get stock or options, much cheaper. You get a 5X, 10X, 50X or even North of a hundred X return like the early VCs who took a big risk. But chances are, you're not one of these in one of these categories. So how can you as a little guy participate in something big and you might remember at the time of the snowflake IPO we showed you this picture, who are these people, Olaf Carlson-Wee, Chris Dixon, this girl Sono. And of course Tim Berners-Lee, you know, that these are some of the folks that inspired me personally to pay attention to crypto. And I want to share the premise that caught my attention. It was this. Think about the early days of the internet. If you saw what Berners-Lee was working on or Linus Torvalds, in one to invest in the internet, you really couldn't. I mean, you couldn't invest in Linux or TCP/IP or HTTP. Suppose you could have invested in Cisco after its IPO that would have paid off pretty big time, for sure. You know, he could have waited for the Netscape IPO but the core infrastructure of the internet was fundamentally not directly a candidate for investment by you or really, you know, by anybody. And Satya Nadella said the other day we have reached maximum centralization. The main protocols of the internet were largely funded by the government and they've been co-opted by the giants. But with crypto, you actually can invest in core infrastructure technologies that are building out a decentralized internet, a new internet, you know call it web three Datto. It's a big part of the investment thesis behind what Carlson-wee is doing. And Andreessen Horowitz they have two crypto funds. They've raised more than $800 million to invest and you should read the firm's crypto investment thesis and maybe even take their crypto startup classes and some great content there. Now, one of the people that I haven't mentioned in this picture is Camila Russo. She's a journalist she's turned into hardcore crypto author is doing great job explaining the white hot defining space or decentralized finance. If you're just at read her work and educate yourself and learn more about the future and be happy perhaps you'll find some 10X or even hundred X opportunities. So look, there's so much innovation going around going on around blockchain and crypto. I mean, you could listen to Warren Buffet and Janet Yellen who implied this is all going to end badly. But while look, these individuals they're smart people. I don't think they would be my go-to source on understanding the potential of the technology and the future of what it could bring. Now, we've talked earlier at the, at the start here about NFTs. DeFi is one of the most interesting and disruptive trends to FinTech, names like Celsius, Nexo, BlockFi. BlockFi let's actually the average person participate in liquidity pools is actually quite interesting. Crypto is going mainstream Tesla, micro strategy putting Bitcoin on their balance sheets. We have a 2017 Jamie diamond. He called Bitcoin a tulip bulb like fraud, yet just the other day JPM announced a structured investment vehicle to give its clients a basket of stocks that have exposure to crypto, PayPal allowing customers to buy, sell, and Hodl crypto. You can trade crypto on Robin Hood. Central banks are talking about launching digital currencies. I talked about the Fedcoin for a number of years and why not? Coinbase is doing an IPO will give it a value of over a hundred billion. Wow, that sounds frothy, but still big names like Mark Cuban and Jamaat palliate Patiala have been active in crypto for a while. Gronk is getting into NFTs. So it goes to have a little bit of that bubble feel to it. But look often when tech bubbles burst they shake out the pretenders but if there's real tech involved, some contenders emerge. So, and they often do so as dominant players. And I really believe that the innovation around crypto is going to be sustained. Now, there is a new web being built out. So if you want to participate, you got to do some research figure out things like how PolkaWorks, make a call on whether you think avalanche is an Ethereum killer dig in and find out about new projects and form a thesis. And you may, as a small player be able to find some big winners, but look you do have to be careful. There was a lot of fraud during the ICO. Craze is your risk. So understand the Tokenomics and maybe as importantly the Pump-a-nomics, because they certainly loom as dangers. This is not for the faint of heart but because I believe it involves real tech. I like it way better than Reddit stocks like GameStop for example, now not to diss Reddit. There's some good information on Reddit. If you're patient, you can find it. And there's lots of good information flowing on Discord. There's people flocking to Telegram as a hedge against big tech. Maybe there's all sounds crazy. And you know what, if you've grown up in a privileged household and you have a US Education you know, maybe it is nuts and a bit too risky for you. But if you're one of the many people who haven't been able to participate in these elite circles there are things going on, especially outside of the US that are democratizing investment opportunities. And I think that's pretty cool. You just got to be careful. So, this is a bit off topic from our typical focus and ETR survey analysis. So let's bring this back to the enterprise because there's a lot going on there as well with blockchain. Now let me first share some quotes on blockchain from a few ETR Venn Roundtables. First comment is from a CIO to diversified holdings company who says correctly, blockchain will hit the finance industry first but there are use cases in healthcare given the privacy and security concerns and logistics to ensure provenance and reduce fraud. And to that individual's point about finance. This is from the CTO of a major financial platform. We're really taking a look at payments. Yeah. Do you think traditional banks are going to lose control of the payment systems? Well, not without a fight, I guess, but look there's some real disruption possibilities here. And just last comment from a government CIO says, we're going to wait until the big platform players they get into their software. And so that is happening Oracle, IBM, VMware, Microsoft, AWS Cisco, they all have blockchain initiatives going on, now by the way, none of these tech companies wants to talk about crypto. They try to distance themselves from that topic which is understandable, I guess, but I'll tell you there's far more innovation going on in crypto than there is in enterprise tech companies at this point. But I predict that the crypto innovations will absolutely be seeping into enterprise tech players over time. But for now the cloud players, they want to support developers who are building out this new internet. The database is certainly a logical place to support a mutable transactions which allow people to do business one-on-one and have total confidence that the source hasn't been hacked or changed and infrastructure to support smart contracts. We've seen that. The use cases in the enterprise are endless asset tracking data access, food, tracking, maintenance, KYC or know your customer, there's applications in different industries, telecoms, oil and gas on and on and on. So look, think of NFTs as a signal crypto craziness is a signal. It's a signal as to how IT in other parts of companies and their data might be organized, managed and tracked and protected, and very importantly, valued. Look today. There's a lot of memes. Crypto kitties, art, of course money as well. Money is the killer app for blockchain, but in the future the underlying technology of blockchain and the many percolating innovations around it could become I think will become a fundamental component of a new digital economy. So get on board, do some research and learn for yourself. Okay, that's it for today. Remember all of these episodes they're available as podcasts, wherever you listen. I publish weekly on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Please feel free to comment on my LinkedIn post or tweet me @dvellante or email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com. Don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey action and data science. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Be well, be careful out there in crypto land. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. (soft music)

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

[Music] hi I'm Peter Burris and welcome to another Cube conversation where we go in depth of thought leaders from around the industry to bring you the best ideas and insights about how to improve your business with technology one of the many things that CIOs and business leaders have to think about is how are they going to execute digital transformations what will be the priorities we all know the relationship between digital transformation and the use of data differently but different technologies assert themselves a different way and very important different relationships especially with cloud vendors assert themselves in different ways and that's one of the many challenges that CIOs have to deal with today serve the business better attend to those relationships and drive the company forward to achieve its ultimate outcomes and objectives so to have that conversation today we've got a great guest Thor Wallace is the senior vice president and CIO at Netscape door welcome to the cube thank you so tell us a little bit about what the CIO at netskope does sure so let me start by telling you a little bit about net sky so net Scout is a network monitoring and a service assurance company as the CIO I'm obviously responsible for providing the tools and the environment for running the company I'm also heavily involved in for example understanding and the applications and the business direction that we're taking we're also working on improving our customer relationships and experiences for example we have a customer portal that were sort of re-evaluating and sort of improving and we're also obviously trying to drive user productivity worldwide we have very briefly about 33 locations worldwide we're corner here and outside of Boston and have large offices both in Texas and California so you're a traditional supplier of technology services it's trying to make a transition to this new world and as part of that and that's got itself is going through digital transformation so that it can better support its customers digital transformations I got that right exactly so let me tell you a little bit about sort of what we're trying to achieve what some of the Y's are and sort of show where we are at this moment yeah so we're you know we as a company are being challenged by the same sort of environment that everyone else else is being a challenge with which is to be able to move as quickly as we can and provide as much of an impact of our customers as possible so so how I've read that sort of mandate in that remit is to really focus on improving our customer experience as I said you know working with a new sort of new platform and we re platforming and refactoring our application our customer service application but also really focusing on how best to improve user productivity so those are the areas that we've been focusing on direct driving IT productivity is important to me so that's a fairly substantial argument for moving operations to the cloud and we're also part of that is transforming sort of a hardware based environment to a much more of a virtualized and software based environment so that includes cloud that includes virtualization which we've obviously have taken a lot of ground on and for example what we've already done is virtualized all of our operations in the data center over the years we've also moved a lot of workloads to cloud were you know cloud agnostic but you know we have a fairly large environment it was salesforce.com we use office 365 which are obviously major applications on the cloud so we have a workload that's quite mixed for today we can we maintain on Prem data centers we have enough large engineering footprint as well so we will kind of live in all of the worlds so we live obviously on Purim we have cloud and one of the things that I think we've learned over the years is that in order to continue the journey of cloud we need to really worry about a couple things one is we want to make sure that we are we keep our operations in in an excellent place so and I can talk more about that in a few minutes and as I said we we want to continue to maintain our ability to execute and really what I call velocity to be able to add value and so cloud actually presents some of those opportunities for us but it also obviously makes things quite complicated in that we have multiple environments we have to make sure that people still get the services and the applications they need to do their job and provide those you know in a in a very productive way in a cost-effective way so that we can maintain that as an IT organization so you've got salesforce.com you've got office 365 you've got some other objectives movies some other applications up into the cloud each of those applications though has been historically associated with a general purpose network that you get to control so that you can give different quality of service to different classes workload or applications how is that changing and what pressures is that putting on your network as you move to more cloud based operations well I think that's a huge challenge for us and I think frankly for for most people I think you have to rethink how your network is designed fundamentally from the ground up and if you think about networks in the past you know in mainly an on-prem world you basically had a backhaul a lot of traffic in our in our case 33 locations worldwide a lot of back hauling of of services and and transactions back to wherever that application exists so for example historically we've had office excuse me in the Microsoft mail system or exchange on Prem we have you know other services that are on print for example Oracle and our ERP system etc and the challenge was to move all that traffic back to basically our core data center and as you move to the cloud you have an opportunity to actually real to rethink that so we've been in the process of doing over the last say year has been to redesign our network from the ground up and moving away from sort of the central monolithic network to more of a cloud slash edge base network so with that we've also moved from hardware basically a fairly heavy investment at hardware in each of the offices for example and we're now or we've actually in the process very far along in the process of converting all that hardware into a software-defined network that allows us to do some things that we have never been able to do operationally for example we can make deployments sort of from one central location worldwide both for security and patching etc and so what we've also done is we've moved as I said we have a lot of our workloads already in the cloud and we continue to put more on the cloud one of the things that's become important is we've got to maintain and create actually a low latency environment so for example ultimately putting our you know unified communication systems and technologies and the cloud to me where is me without having a low latency environment and a low latency network so that we can actually provide dial tone well worldwide and without worrying about performance so what we've what we've already done is we've transitioned from the centralized network into an edge based Network we've actually happened now a partner that we now are putting in services into a local presence idea have worldwide into firm into three locations for equinox and with that comes the software based network and allows us to move traffic directly to the edge and therefore once we're at the edge we can go very quickly a sort of backbone speeds into whatever cloud service we need whether it's as your AWS or Salesforce or any other provider office 365 we can get that sort of speed and low latency that is created a new environment for us at which is now virtual software base gives us a tremendous amount of flexibility moving what I consider fairly heavy and significant workloads that remain on Prem it gives us the option of moving that to the cloud so and with that one of the key things that comes with that is holding making sure that we can hold our accountable are our vendors very accountable for performance so for example if we experience an issue with office 365 performance whether it's in Pune or Westford or wherever it is we want to be able to make sure that we have the information and the data that says to Microsoft in this case hey you know we're actually the performance isn't great from wherever wherever those users are wherever that office is so we want to provide them information and to basically prove that our network or our insert internal capabilities and network are performing very well but may be that there's an issue with something and performance that on their size so without this sort of fact-based information it's really hard to have those discussions with vendors so one of the things I think is important for everyone to consider when you move more to a cloud is you've got to have the ability to troubleshoot and and make sure that you can actually maintain a very complicated environment so one of the things we have done is we and we continue to do is use our own products actually to give greater visibility that we've ever had before in this new sort of multi this multi sort of cloud multi Prem environment so so which is a very powerful thing for us and a team that is using this technology is sort of seeing visibility things that they've never really been able to see before so that's been quite exciting but I think that's sort of frankly table stakes moving forward into you know deeper more cloud or sort of sort of workload independent model that we're seeking well so one of the government building this because I have conversations like this all the time and I don't think people realize the degree to which some of these changes are really going to change the way that they actually get worked on when there's a problem you have control of the network and the application and the endpoints if there is an issue you can turn to someone who works for you and say here's the deal fix this so I'll find somebody else that can fix it so you have an employment-based almost model of coercion you can get people to do what you want to do but when you move into the cloud you find yourself having to use a contracting approach to actually get crucial things done and problems crop up either way it doesn't matter if you own it all or somebody else owns at all you're going to encounter problems and so you have to accelerate and diminish the amount of back-and-forth haggling that goes on and as you said the best way to do that is to have fact-based evidence-based visibility into what's actually happening so that you can pinpoint and avoid the back-and-forth about whose issue it really is exactly I mean there's so much you know is at the end of the day IT is still responsible for user productivity so whether somebody's having you know an application issue in terms of availability or frankly if it's not performing up to what it should be you're still accountable as an organization and regardless of where the workloads are it could be as you point out you know back in the day you could always go to your data center and do a lot of investigation and really do a lot of troubleshooting within the four walls today you just don't have that visit you don't have that luxury call it and so it's a whole new world and you know we all are relying increasingly on vendors which reads a contracting star which is you know presents an issue and you know sort of having these conversations with a vendor or contractor regardless of your relationship with them you're still again you're on the hook or for doing this so you've got to have some facts you've got to have some story you have to show in terms of hey you know we're good on this side you know the issue really is on you and we've actually had situations whether it was performance issues or service interruptions or bugs from different vendors where they've impacted our you know the net Scout organization and without you know deep understanding of what's going on you really don't have anywhere to go you you really have to have this sort of greater visibility and this is one of the things that you know is a is a is a lesson learned from at least from the journey that we're taking and so I think that's part of the story of the cloud and sort of migration and virtualization story is you really have to have this newfound visibility so I think that's been you know really important for us so I'm gonna I'm gonna see if I can't generalize that a little bit because I think it's great point as you go into a network redesign to support go to operations excellent operations in a cloud you have to also go into a sourcing and information redesign so that you can be assured that you're getting the information you need to sustain the degree of control or approximate the control that you had before otherwise you've got great technology but no way to deal with problems when they arise right exactly and you know as I said we've seen this movie and Minoo without having what we have I think we would have struggle as an organization actually to resolve the issue and that's not good for the company because you know IT part of the minute the mandate and their the remit for us is to make sure that people are as productive as it can be and so not having the ability to provide that environment is actually a huge problem for I think a lot of people and one of the ways we are working with it is to you know have that sort of visibility it also means upgrading the team skills which we've done a lot of work on so you take folks that were in IT that you know may have had a certain set of skills sort of in the on-prem environment call it those skills are quite different in in that in the sort of cloud or the mix exposure environment so I think upskilling you know having more information better information is really as part of the story that we're learning and that part of it at the end of the day it's not about upgrading the network it's about upgrading the network capability exactly yeah and you can't do that if especially the new world if you don't upgrade your ability to get information about how the whole thing is working together exactly all right Thor Wallis senior vice president and CIO at net Scout thanks very much for being on the queue thank you and once again I want to thank you participating in today's conversation until next time

from the silicon angle media office in Boston Massachusetts it's the queue now here's your host David on tape hello everyone and welcome to this cube conversation today we're gonna dig into the challenges of defending distributed denial of service or DDoS attacks we're gonna look at what DDoS attacks are why they occur and how defense techniques have evolved over time and with me to discuss these issues as Darin and Steve he's the CTO of security at net Scout Darren good to see you again can you tell me about your role your CTO of security so you got CTO specific to the different areas of your business yeah so I work within the broader CTO office at net Scout and we really act as a bridge between customers engineering teams our product management and the broader market and we're all about making sure that our strategy aligns with that of our customers that we're delivering what they need and when they need it and we're really about thought leadership so looking at the unique technologies and capabilities that that scout has and how we can pull those things together to deliver new value propositions new capabilities that can move our customers businesses forward and obviously taking us with of them great so let's get into it I mean everybody hears of DDoS attacks but specifically you know what are they why do they occur when what's the motivation behind the bad guys hitting us so a distributed denial of service attack is simply when an attacker is looking to consume some or all of the resources that are assigned to a network service or application so that a genuine user can't get through so that you can't get to that website so that your network is full of traffic so that firewall is no longer forwarding packets that's fundamentally what a DDoS attack is all about in terms of the motivations behind them they are many and varied there's a wide wide range of motivations behind the DDoS activity that we see going on out there today everything from cybercrime where people are holding people to ransom so I will take your website down unless you pay me you know X Bitcoin from ideological disputes through to nation-state attacks and then of course you get the you know things like students in higher educational establishments targeting online coursework submission and testing systems because they simply you know don't want to do the work fundamentally the issue you have around the motivations today is that it's so easy for anyone to get access to fairly sophisticated attack capabilities that anyone can launch an attack for pretty much any reason and that means that pretty much anyone can be targeted okay so you gotta be ready so are there different types of attacks I guess so right used to be denial of service now I'm distributed the service but what are the different types of attacks so the three main categories of distributed denial of service attack of what we call volumetric attacks State exhaustion attacks and application-layer attacks and you can kind of think of them around the different aspects of our infrastructure or the infrastructure of an organization that gets targeted so volumetric attacks are all about saturating Internet connectivity filling up the pipe as it were state exhaustion attacks are all about exhausting the state tables in specific pieces of infrastructure so if you think about load balancers and firewalls they maintain state on the traffic that they're forwarding if you can fill those tables up they stop doing their job and you can't get through them and then you have the application layer attacks which is their name would suggest is simply an attacker targeting an attack targeting a service at the application layer so for example flooding a website with requests for a download something like that so that genuine user can't get through it presumably some of those attacks for the infiltrators some of them are probably easier have a lower bar than others is that right or they pretty much also the same level of sophistication in terms of the attacks themselves there's big differences in the sophistication of the attack in terms of launching the attack it's really easy now so a lot of the attack tools that are out there today would be you know are fully weaponized so you click a button it launches multiple attack vectors at a target some of them will even rotate those attack vectors to make it harder for you to deal with the attack and then you have the DDoS for hire services that will do all of this for you is effectively a managed service so there's a whole economy around this stuff so common challenge and security very low barriers to entry how have these attacks changed over time so DDoS is nothing new it's been around for over 20 years and it has changed significantly over that time period as you would expect with anything in technology if you go back 20 years a DDoS attack of a couple of gigabits a second would be considered very very large last year we obviously saw saw DDoS attacks break the terabit barrier so you know that's an awful lot of traffic if we look in a more focused way at what's changed over the last 18 months I think there's a couple of things that are worth highlighting firstly we've seen the numbers of what we would consider to be midsize attacks and really grow very quickly over the last 12 months mid-sized to us is between 100 and 400 gigabits per second so we're still talking about very significant traffic volumes that can do a lot of damage you know saturate the internet connectivity of pretty much any enterprise out there between 2018 2019 looking at the two first halves respectively you're looking at about seven hundred and seventy six percent growth so there are literally thousands of these attacks going on out there now in that hundred to four hundred gig band and that's changing the way that network operators are thinking about dealing with them second thing that's changed is in the complexity of attacks now I've already mentioned this a little bit but there are now a lot of attack tools out there that completely automate the rotation of attack vectors during an attack so changing the way the attack works periodically every few minutes or every few seconds and they do that because it makes it harder to mitigate it makes it more likely that they'll succeed in their goal and then the third thing that I suppose has changed is simply the breadth of devices and protocols that are being used to launch attacks so we all remember in 2016 when Dyne was attacked and we started hearing about IOT and mirai and things like that that CCTV and DVR devices were being used there since then a much broader range of device types being targeted compromised subsumed into botnets and used to generate DDoS attacks and we're also seeing them use a much wider range of protocols within those DDoS attacks so there's a technique called reflection amplification which has been behind many of the largest DDoS attacks over the last 15 years or so traditionally it used a fairly narrow band of protocols over the last year or so we've seen attackers researching and then weaponizing a new range of protocols expanding their capability getting around existing defenses so there's a lot changing out there so you talking about mitigation how do you mitigate how do you defend against these attacks so that's changing actually so if you look at the way that the service provider world used to deal with DDoS predominantly what you would find is they would be investing in intelligent DDoS mitigation systems such as the Arbour TMS and they'd be deploying those solutions into their primary peering locations potentially into centralized data centers and then when they detected an attack using our sight line platform they would identify where it was coming in they identify the target of the attack and they divert the traffic across their network to those TMS locations inspect the traffic clean away the bad forward on the good protect the customer protect the infrastructure protect the service what's happening now is that the shape of service provider networks is changing so if we look at the way the content used to be distributed in service providers they pull it in centrally push it out to their customers if we look at the way that value-added service infrastructure used to be deployed it was very similar they deploy it centrally and then serve the customer all of that is starting to push out to the edge now contents coming in in many more locations nearer to areas delivered value-added service infrastructure is being pushed into virtual network functions at the edge of the network and that means that operators are not engineering the core of their networks in the same way they want to move DDoS attack traffic across their network so that they can then inspect and discard it they want to be doing things right at the edge and they want to be doing things at the edge combining together the capabilities of their router and switch infrastructure which they've already invested in with the intelligent DDoS mitigation capabilities of something like Ann Arbor TMS and they're looking for solutions that really orchestrate those combinations of mitigation mechanisms to deal with attacks as efficiently and effectively as possible and that's very much where we're going with the site line with sentinel products okay and we're gonna get into that you'd mentioned service providers do enterprises the same way and what's different so some enterprises approaching in exactly the same way so your larger scale enterprises that have networks that look a bit like those of service providers very much looking to use their router and switch infrastructure very much looking for a fully automated orchestrated attack response that leverages all capabilities within a given network with full reporting all of those kind two things for other enterprises hybrid DDoS defense has always been seen as the best practice which is really this combination of a service provider or cloud-based service to deal with high-volume attacks that would simply saturate connectivity with an on-prem or virtually on-prem capability that has a much more focused view of that enterprises traffic that can look at what's going on around the applications potentially decrypt traffic for those applications so that you can find those more stealthy more sophisticated attacks and deal with them very proactively do you you know a lot of times companies don't want to collaborate because their competitors but security is somewhat different are you finding that service providers or maybe even large organizations but not financial services that are are they collaborating and sharing information they're starting to so with the scale of DDoS now especially in terms of the size of the attacks and the frequency of the tax we are starting to see I suppose two areas where there's collaboration firstly you're seeing groups of organizations who are looking to offer services in a unified way to a customer outside of their normal reach so you know service provider a has reach in region area service provider B in region B see in region C they're looking to offer a unified service to a customer that has offices in all of those regions so they need to collaborate in order to offer that unified service so that's one driver for collaboration another one is where you see large service providers who have multiple kind of satellite operating companies so you know you think of some of the big brands that are out there in the search provider world they have networks in lots of parts of your well then they have other networks that join those networks together and they would very much like to share information kind of within that the challenge has always been well there are really two challenges to sharing information to deal with DDoS firstly there's a trust challenge so if I'm going to tell you about a DDoS attack are you simply going to start doing something with that information that might potentially drop traffic for a customer that might impact your network in some way that's one challenge the second challenge is invisibility in if I tell you about something how do you tell me what you actually did how do I find out what actually happened how do I tell my customer that I might be defending what happened overall so one of the things that we're doing in site language we're building in a new smart signaling mechanism where our customers will be able to cooperate with each other they'll be able to share information safely between one another and they'll be able to get feedback from one another on what actually happened what traffic was forwarded what traffic was dropped that's critical because you've mentioned the first challenges you got the balance of okay I'm business disruption versus protecting in the second is hey something's going wrong I don't really know what it is well that's not really very helpful well let's get more into the the Arbour platform and talk about how you guys are helping solve this this problem okay so sight line the honest sight line platform has been the market leading DDoS detection and mitigation solutions for network operators for well over the last decade obviously we were required by Netscape back in 2015 and what we've really been looking at is how we can integrate the two sets of technologies to deliver a real step change in capability to the market and that's really what we're doing with the site language Sentinel product site language Sentinel integrates net Scout and Arbor Technology so Arbor is traditionally provided our customers our sight line customers with visibility of what's happening across their networks at layer 3 and 4 so very much a network focus net Scout has smart data technology Smart Data technology is effectively about acquiring packet data in pretty much any environment whether we're talking physical virtual container public or private cloud and turning those packets into metadata into what we call smart data what we're doing in sight line with sentinel is combining packet and flow data together so you can think of it as kind of like colorizing a black and white photo so if you think about the picture we used to have insight line as being black and white we add this Smart Data suddenly we've colorized it when you look at that picture you can see more you can engage with it more you understand more about what was going on we're moving our visibility from the network layer up to the service layer and that will allow our customers to optimize the way that they deliver content across their networks it will allow them to understand what kinds of services their customers are accessing across their network so that they can optimize their value-added service portfolios drive additional revenue they'll be able to detect a broader range of threats things like botnet monitoring that kind of thing and they'll also be able to report on distributed denial of service attacks in a very different way if you look at the way in which much the reporting that happens out there today is designed it's very much network layer how many bits are forwarded how many packets are dropped when you're trying to explain to an end customer the value of the service that you offer that's a bit kind of vague what they want to know is how did my service perform how is my service protected and by bringing in that service layer visibility we can do that and that whole smarter visibility anger will drive a new intelligent automation engine which will really look at any attack and then provide a fully automated orchestrated attack response using all of the capabilities within a given network even outside a given network using the the the smarter signaling mechanism very whilst delivering a full suite of reporting on what's going on so that you're relying on the solution to deal with the attack for you to some degree but you're also being told exactly what's happening why it's happening and where it's happening in your secret sauce is this the way in which you handle the the metadata what you call smart data is that right I'll secret sauce really is in I think it's in a couple of different areas so with site language Sentinel the smart data is really a key one I think the other key one is our experience in the DDoS space so we understand how our customers are looking to use their router and switch infrastructure we understand the nature of the attacks that are going on out there we have a unique set of visibility into the attack landscape through the Netscape Atlas platform when you combine all of those things together we can look at a given network and we can understand for this attack at this this second this is the best way of dealing with that attack using these different mechanisms if the attack changes we love to our strategy and building that intelligent automation needs that smarter visibility so all of those different bits of our secret sauce really come together in centers so is that really your differentiator from you know your key competitors that you've got the experience you've got obviously the the tech anything else you'd add to that I think the other thing that we've got is two people so we've got a lot of research kind of capability in the DDoS space so we are we are delivering a lot of intelligence into our products as well now it's not just about what you detect locally anymore and we look at the way that the attack landscape is changing I mentioned that attackers are researching and weaponizing new protocols you know we're learning about that as it happens by looking at our honey pots by looking at our sinkholes by looking at our atlas data we're pushing that information down into site language Sentinel as well so that our customers are best prepared to deal with what's facing them when you talk to customers can you kind of summarize for our audience the the key to the business challenges you talked about some of the technical there may be some others that you can mention but try to get to that business impact yeah so on the business side of it there's a few different things so a lot of it comes down to operational cost and complexity and also obviously the cost of deploying infrastructure so and both of those things are changing because of the way that networks are changing and business models are changing on the operational side everyone is looking for their solutions to be more intelligent and more automated but they don't want them simply to be a black box if it's a black box it either works or it doesn't and if it doesn't you've got big problems especially if you've got service level agreements and things tied to services so intelligent automation to reduce operational overhead is key and we're very focused on that second thing is around deployment of capability into networks so I mentioned that the traditional DDoS that that the traditional DDoS mitigation kind of strategy was to deploy intelligent DDoS mitigation capability in to keep hearing locations and centralized data centers as we push things out towards the edge our customers are looking for those capabilities to be deployed more flexibly they're looking for them to be deployed on common off-the-shelf hardware they're looking for different kinds of software licensing models which again is something that we've already addressed to kind of allow our customers to move in that direction and then the third thing I think is really half opportunity and half business challenge and that's that when you look at service providers today they're very very focused on how they can generate additional revenue so they're looking very much at how they can take a service that maybe they've offered in the past to their top hundred customers and offer it to their top thousand or five thousand customers part of that is dry is intelligent automation part of that is getting the visibility but part of that again is partnering with an organization like netskope that can really help them to do that and so it's kind of part challenge part opportunity there but that's again something we're very focused on I want to come back and double down on the the point about automation seems to me the unique thing one of the unique things about security is this huge skills gap and people complain about that all the time a lot of infrastructure businesses you know automation means that you can take people and put them on you know different tasks more strategic and I'm sure that's true also its security but there's because of that skills gap automation is the only way to solve these problems right I mean you can't just keep throwing people at the problem because you don't have the skilled people and you can't take that brute force approach does that make sense to you it's scale and speed when it comes to distributed denial-of-service so given the attack vectors are changing very rapidly now because the tools support that you've got two choices as an operator you either have somebody focused on watching what the attack is doing and changing your mitigation strategy dynamically or you invest in a solution that has more intelligent art and more intelligent analytics better visibility of what's going on and that's slightly and with Sentinel fundamentally the other key thing is the scale aspect which is if you're looking to drive value-added services to a broader addressable market you can't really do that you know by simply hiring more and more people because the services don't cost in so that's where the intelligent automation comes in it's about scaling the capability that operators already have and most of them have a lot of you know very clever very good people in the security space you know it's about scaling the capability they already have to drive that additional revenue to drive the additional value so if I had to boil it down the business is obviously lower cost it's mentioned scale more effective mitigation which yeah which you know lowers your risk and then for the service providers it's monetization as well yeah and the more effective mitigation is a key one as well so you know leveraging that router and switch infrastructure to deal with the bulk of attack so that you can then use the intelligent DDoS mitigation capability the Arbour TMS to deal with the more sophisticated components combining those two things together all right we'll give you the final word Darren you know takeaways and you know any key point that you want to drive home yeah I mean sightline has been a market leading product for a number of years now what we're really doing in Nets care is investing in that we're pulling together the different technologies that we have available within the business to deliver a real step change in capability to our customer base so that they can have a fully automated and orchestrated attack response capability that allows them to defend themselves better and allows them to drive a new range of value-added services well Dara thanks for coming on you guys doing great work really appreciate your insights thanks Dave you're welcome and thank you for watching everybody this is Dave Volante we'll see you next time

from the silicon angle media office in Boston Massachusetts it's the queue now here's your host David on tape hi everybody welcome to this cube conversation I'm Dave Volante and you're cloud and cloud migrations are a major challenge for customers they move things into the cloud and variably they've got things that they want to maintain on Prem they've got to figure out what to move how to move it how to maintain performance and how to maintain the experience from on Prem into the cloud rate Krueger's here is a solution architect at net scout rate thanks for coming on nice to be here thank you so tell us a little bit about nesco yeah I mean net sky I mean primarily it helps you provide the visibility required to protect your digital digital business transformation we give you availability information performance information and security insights into what's going on in your environment we do this for 90% of the fortune 500 we do this for 95% of service provider so we're kind of Carrio class service provider and enterprise sophistication and we basically give you that visibility without borders and the visibility without borders is all about saying wherever you deploy your application whether it's being on Prem in your private data center software-defined data center or West en or whatever it might be or whether you migrate some or all of that into the public cloud AWS or as your we give you that same visibility same metrics wherever you host your application even in this hybrid world or this multi cloud world of today okay so top level one of those discussions like you heard my sort of intro and some of the challenges but what a customer is telling you about their cloud migrations well ok that's interesting so so that's kind of been around for eight years we're in like as I said thousands of customers and and these guys have been tasked they've been tasked with going to the cloud for business agility reasons and the idea of business agility is can you sort of create new services quicker new business initiatives new projects new application new ways that customers can we communicate with the business and they it's all about wrapping this and delivering these applications very quickly so the guys that we're talking to us said are being our task to move it to the cloud for various reasons it's not necessarily cost reasons as well it's LT and the the view is of the businesses the cloud will give them that agility maybe easier to manage maybe it's quicker to deploy applications quickly and all that sort of thing so they mean tasks to do that and that's a challenge because you know providing that visibility on premon in the cloud has been historically true well the other thing about the cloud is it's it's easy to test you know you test things you experiment you fail fast try the next one and it's relatively inexpensive to do that versus you know buying infrastructure but now so you see that but so talk a little bit more about some of the the real challenges that customers are facing you know when they start that migration as I said before they've got on-prem they've got workloads in the cloud they want a consistent experience but what are some of the problems yeah I mean yeah yeah yeah that's that shadow IT if you thought it has been a big problem but that's business utility isn't it okay because it's taken so long to deploy stuff on Prem ok to take four days before I have a new host ready for you to do that application so no wonder they've done that shadow whitey right but but anyway okay so on task to migrate this application so okay so I got to understand what that application looks like what are the components what it's what is it talking to because if I miss something right if I don't migrate all the components and don't forget these application it's not just one server or one component of the application it's maybe ten components might be whatever it is I need to know what that is and I can't just go to the documentation team to actually see all the protocols it's talking to all the dependencies whether it's one app tier talking to a database tier or whatever it might be the documentation just doesn't exist and the developers who developed that application no longer are part of the company they've long gone if ever they wrote any documentation so to understand right what you need to migrate is one of the biggest challenges and as it happens it's one of the challenges that we can help in netscape well this is a huge problem because you mentioned dependencies so if as you say an application talking to a database and maybe an ancillary application downstream those are going to affect business processes and unless you understand those dependencies if you effect one it's going to have a ripple effect on others and it could affect the business process so so that is a critical problem okay well so how do you nets go solve that problem I mean I have a question how does the industry generally solve it and I want to understand how you're different yeah okay so there's a couple of problems there is what one is understanding the components the dependencies and then one is understanding the performance so you can migrate successfully and all that sort of thing yeah so the industry typically will actually try and use some rudimentary network data to try and take a look at one application communicating to another and trying to get that from some devices various devices around the network because what they'll try to do to do that looking for connections is ok looking for connections and how they're doing that and in terms of performance they're they're resorting to looking at the different logs or the different infrastructure information like CPU utilization or those sort of things or developers are looking at instrumenting code into the applications which give them that performance information trouble with those they only see what the developers put into them rather than the whole picture of all those dependencies so while a bespoke data a lot of bespoke data trying to bring that together and come up with a conclusion that they this is all the components and this is how it's performing it is it's tricky ok so how do you guys do so yeah ok so as you know we use the network the wire data in order to understand what's going on so think about it if an application if I'm talking to my CRM application I might have a web browser it's talking to a web server talking to an app server to talking to a micro survey database or whatever it might be but all of those are interactions in a network different protocols HTTP HWS database Active Directory DNS so because we look at the network we can see it all so we can see all the traffic on the network we can see how things are communicating in reality so you don't necessarily need the documentation because we're documenting what's going on right now and that's kind of where we really score big in terms of understanding those dependencies and it's the it's the secret sauce that we've always known about the that that net Scout has your ability to to probe the network your your layer that analyzes that data the architecture that you've created right that's your IT yeah that's our secret sauce so we translate why data trauma is why data there's a lot of it and it's hard to interpret so that's one thing so we we've cured that problem by creating a patented technology called ASI adaptive service intelligent which translates that wire data into meaningful key performance metrics so you name the application it's all the applications going on your network translate them into performance metrics let's say application performance metrics and then differentiating that's a application latency from Network latency so we can see whether it was a network problem slowing things down or the application server slowing things down but also errors we can see all of that in that that wire data so that's that next layer up and then we have the analytics platform which we call ingenious one which actually takes that metadata and then allows us to display okay it's service dependency map so this is how your application is communicating all the nooks and cranny's the things that you didn't expect and not only does it do the dependency it does the performance as well the metadata oh it always comes back to the metadata one of the challenges that customers tell us they have is just creating the experience between on Prem and cloud you know the so called hybrid a lot of times it's it's different and they want to take that cloud experience and bring it to wherever they are cloud a cloud be on Prem are you able to maintain that experience in in this hybrid model yeah so to multi cloud or or not to multi class yeah no that's the beauty of number one why data and what we do why data is everywhere ok so if your applications communicate communicating in the cloud it's still communicating over IP and so we can actually instrument into the cloud collecting that wire data and then doing the same analytics asi in the same taking the same meta data and actually bring together a view of now the dependencies across the multi-cloud so whatever the cloud were able to get at that wire data and translate it into a si all uniform it's the same metrics okay so let's say we're out in a bar and you meet me and I'm an IT guy and I start chatting and I say hey I got this I'm doing this big project I'm really you know get this important it's got visibility at the board level and we're moving to the cloud and it gets your attention say whoo that's interesting and you start asking me to what advice would you would you give me I'm open to that okay obviously it's a talk to Nets character but the important thing is is this is that the question is that I've got a migrate this to the cloud and all that something and it's like sort of quite scary because I don't necessarily understand the cloud I don't realize that it's either the same or it's it's it's it's different or how its performing and it's I'm losing that visibility so you want to give that guy confidence you also want to give that guy the ability to say okay I understand the cloud and when things aren't the cloud I can continue to monitor it because that's after all the important thing so we've given them that confidence by saying hey we can instrument that application when it goes to the cloud and we can instrument beforehand so it goes it goes in the view understand what you're going to migrate all the components because you don't want to miss something migrate it and still have that visibility when it goes into the cloud we can give you that we give you this is interesting we give you access to that wire data when there are no wires that's to say the magic of nets carrots because we can instrument inside the workloads and get access to the traffic that's going in and out of those virtual machines those ec2 instances those virtual machines in in different clouds get access to that wire data and translate it into those key performance metrics and that's unique to Nets code like how do you do that well okay so the ASI is unique and the our agent technology is also unique to us to actually translate in the virtual machine in the cloud that wire data into metrics and then doing that all on the workload itself is very powerful if we can't instrument in the workload then there's another solution as well to get access to that wire data and that's what recently people like Amazon web services and as you I have announced the ability to tap in to that traffic so as you offer V tap which allows you to copy packets from VM to a destination which would be one of our probe technologies in the cloud Amazon have V PC traffic mirroring to actually get access to that data as well and we do the same thing the point is whether their workloads in the cloud workloads in the private cloud or the data center it's the same metrics and we get that visibility end-to-end visibility is the key ray thanks so much for coming on the cube and explaining so that your approach to a cloud and multi clouds great have you thank you very much you're welcome Eric thanks for watching everybody this is Dave Volante thanks for watching this cubed conversation [Music]

>> live from Boston, Massachusetts. It's the Cube covering A W s reinforce 2019. Brought to you by Amazon Web service is and its ecosystem partners. >> Well, welcome back. Everyone's Cube Live coverage here in Boston, Massachusetts, for AWS. Reinforce Amazon Web sources. First inaugural conference around security. It's not Osama. It's a branded event. Big time ecosystem developing. We have returning here. Cube Alumni Bill Jeff for VP of strategy and the partnerships that Iron Net Cyber Security Company. Welcome back. Thanks. General Keith Alexander, who was on a week and 1/2 ago. And it was public sector summit. Good to see you. Good >> to see you. Thanks for >> having my back, but I want to get into some of the Iran cyber communities. We had General Qi 1000. He was the original commander of the division. So important discussions that have around that. But don't get your take on the event. You guys, you're building a business. The minute cyber involved in public sector. This is commercial private partnership. Public relations coming together. Yeah. Your models are sharing so bringing public and private together important. >> Now that's exactly right. And it's really great to be here with eight of us were really close partner of AWS is we'll work with them our entire back in today. Runs on AWS really need opportunity. Get into the ecosystem, meet some of the folks that are working that we might work with my partner but to deliver a great product, right? And you're seeing a lot of people move to cloud, right? And so you know some of the big announcement that are happening here today. We're willing. We're looking to partner up with eight of us and be a first time provider for some key new Proactiv elves. AWS is launching in their own platform here today. So that's a really neat thing for us to be partnered up with this thing. Awesome organization. I'm doing some of >> the focus areas around reinforcing your party with Amazon shares for specifics. >> Yes. So I don't know whether they announced this capability where they're doing the announcement yesterday or today. So I forget which one so I'll leave that leave that leave that once pursued peace out. But the main thing is, they're announcing couple of new technology plays way our launch party with them on the civility place. So we're gonna be able to do what we were only wanted to do on Prem. We're gonna be able to do in the cloud with AWS in the cloud formation so that we'll deliver the same kind of guy that would deliver on prime customers inside their own cloud environments and their hybrid environment. So it's a it's a it's a sea change for us. The company, a sea change for a is delivering that new capability to their customers and really be able to defend a cloud network the way you would nonpregnant game changer >> described that value, if you would. >> Well, so you know, one of the key things about about a non pregnant where you could do you could look at all the flows coming past you. You look at all the data, look at in real time and develop behavior. Lana looks over. That's what we're doing our own prime customers today in the cloud with his world who looked a lox, right? And now, with the weight of your capability, we're gonna be able to integrate that and do a lot Maur the way we would in a in a in a normal sort of on Prem environment. So you really did love that. Really? Capability of scale >> Wagon is always killed. The predictive analytics, our visibility and what you could do. And too late. Exactly. Right. You guys solve that with this. What are some of the challenges that you see in cloud security that are different than on premise? Because that's the sea, So conversation we've been hearing. Sure, I know on premise. I didn't do it on premises for awhile. What's the difference between the challenge sets, the challenges and the opportunities they provide? >> Well, the opportunities air really neat, right? Because you've got that even they have a shared responsibility model, which is a little different than you officially have it. When it's on Prem, it's all yours essential. You own that responsibility and it is what it is in the cloud. Its share responsible to cloud provider the data holder. Right? But what's really cool about the cloud is you could deliver some really interesting Is that scale you do patch updates simultaneously, all your all your back end all your clients systems, even if depending how your provisioning cloud service is, you could deliver that update in real time. You have to worry about. I got to go to individual systems and update them, and some are updated. Summer passed. Some aren't right. Your servers are packed simultaneously. You take him down, you're bringing back up and they're ready to go, right? That's a really capability that for a sigh. So you're delivering this thing at scale. It's awesome now, So the challenge is right. It's a new environment so that you haven't dealt with before. A lot of times you feel the hybrid environment governed both an on Prem in sanitation and class sensation. Those have to talkto one another, right? And you might think about Well, how do I secure those those connections right now? And I think about spending money over here when I got all seduced to spend up here in the cloud. And that's gonna be a hard thing precisely to figure out, too. And so there are some challenges, but the great thing is, you got a whole ecosystem. Providers were one of them here in the AWS ecosystem. There are a lot here today, and you've got eight of us as a part of self who wants to make sure that they're super secure, but so are yours. Because if you have a problem in their cloud, that's a challenge. Them to market this other people. You talk about >> your story because your way interviews A couple weeks ago, you made a comment. I'm a recovering lawyer, kind of. You know, we all laughed, but you really start out in law, right? >> How did you end up here? Yeah, well, the truth is, I grew up sort of a technology or myself. My first computer is a trash 80 a trs 80 color computer. RadioShack four k of RAM on board, right. We only >> a true TRS 80. Only when I know what you're saying. That >> it was a beautiful system, right? Way stored with sword programs on cassette tapes. Right? And when we operated from four Keita 16 k way were the talk of the Rainbow Computer Club in Santa Monica, California Game changer. It was a game here for 16. Warning in with 60 give onboard. Ram. I mean, this is this is what you gonna do. And so you know, I went from that and I in >> trouble or something, you got to go to law school like you're right >> I mean, you know, look, I mean, you know it. So my dad, that was a chemist, right? So he loved computers, love science. But he also had an unrequited political boners body. He grew up in East Africa, Tanzania. It was always thought that he might be a minister in government. The Socialist came to power. They they had to leave you at the end of the day. And he came to the states and doing chemistry, which is course studies. But he still loved politics. So he raised at NPR. So when I went to college, I studied political science. But I paid my way through college doing computer support, life sciences department at the last moment. And I ran 10 based. He came on climate through ceilings and pulled network cable do punch down blocks, a little bit of fibrous placing. So, you know, I was still a murderer >> writing software in the scythe. >> One major, major air. And that was when when the web first came out and we had links. Don't you remember? That was a text based browser, right? And I remember looking to see him like this is terrible. Who would use http slash I'm going back to go for gophers. Awesome. Well, turns out I was totally wrong about Mosaic and Netscape. After that, it was It was it was all hands on >> deck. You got a great career. Been involved a lot in the confluence of policy politics and tech, which is actually perfect skill set for the challenge we're dealing. So I gotta ask you, what are some of the most important conversations that should be on the table right now? Because there's been a lot of conversations going on around from this technology. I has been around for many decades. This has been a policy problem. It's been a societal problem. But now this really focus on acute focus on a lot of key things. What are some of the most important things that you think should be on the table for techies? For policymakers, for business people, for lawmakers? >> One. I think we've got to figure out how to get really technology knowledge into the hands of policymakers. Right. You see, you watch the Facebook hearings on Capitol Hill. I mean, it was a joke. It was concerning right? I mean, anybody with a technology background to be concerned about what they saw there, and it's not the lawmakers fault. I mean, you know, we've got to empower them with that. And so we got to take technologist, threw it out, how to get them to talk policy and get them up on the hill and in the administration talking to folks, right? And one of the big outcomes, I think, has to come out of that conversation. What do we do about national level cybersecurity, Right, because we assume today that it's the rule. The private sector provides cyber security for their own companies, but in no other circumstance to expect that when it's a nation state attacker, wait. We don't expect Target or Wal Mart or any other company. J. P. Morgan have surface to air missiles on the roofs of their warehouses or their buildings to Vegas Russian bear bombers. Why, that's the job of the government. But when it comes to cyberspace, we expect Private Cummings defending us everything from a script kiddie in his basement to the criminal hacker in Eastern Europe to the nation state, whether Russia, China, Iran or North Korea and these nation states have virtually a limited resource. Your armies did >> sophisticated RND technology, and it's powerful exactly like a nuclear weaponry kind of impact for digital. >> Exactly. And how can we expect prices comes to defend themselves? It's not. It's not a fair fight. And so the government has to have some role. The questions? What role? How did that consist with our values, our principles, right? And how do we ensure that the Internet remains free and open, while still is sure that the president is not is not hampered in doing its job out there. And I love this top way talk about >> a lot, sometimes the future of warfare. Yeah, and that's really what we're talking about. You go back to Stuxnet, which opened Pandora's box 2016 election hack where you had, you know, the Russians trying to control the mean control, the narrative. As you pointed out, that that one video we did control the belief system you control population without firing a shot. 20 twenties gonna be really interesting. And now you see the U. S. Retaliate to Iran in cyberspace, right? Allegedly. And I was saying that we had a conversation with Robert Gates a couple years ago and I asked him. I said, Should we be Maur taking more of an offensive posture? And he said, Well, we have more to lose than the other guys Glasshouse problem? Yeah, What are your thoughts on? >> Look, certainly we rely intimately, inherently on the cyber infrastructure that that sort of is at the core of our economy at the core of the world economy. Increasingly, today, that being said, because it's so important to us all the more reason why we can't let attacks go Unresponded to write. And so if you're being attacked in cyberspace, you have to respond at some level because if you don't, you'll just keep getting punched. It's like the kid on the playground, right? If the bully keeps punching him and nobody does anything, not not the not the school administration, not the kid himself. Well, then the boy's gonna keep doing what he's doing. And so it's not surprising that were being tested by Iran by North Korea, by Russia by China, and they're getting more more aggressive because when we don't punch back, that's gonna happen. Now we don't have to punch back in cyberspace, right? A common sort of fetish about Cyrus is a >> response to the issue is gonna respond to the bully in this case, your eggs. Exactly. Playground Exactly. We'll talk about the Iran. >> So So if I If I if I can't Yeah, the response could be Hey, we could do this. Let them know you could Yes. And it's a your move >> ate well, And this is the key is that it's not just responding, right. So Bob Gates or told you we can't we talk about what we're doing. And even in the latest series of alleged responses to Iran, the reason we keep saying alleged is the U. S has not publicly acknowledged it, but the word has gotten out. Well, of course, it's not a particularly effective deterrence if you do something, but nobody knows you did it right. You gotta let it out that you did it. And frankly, you gotta own it and say, Hey, look, that guy punch me, I punch it back in the teeth. So you better not come after me, right? We don't do that in part because these cables grew up in the intelligence community at N S. A and the like, and we're very sensitive about that But the truth is, you have to know about your highest and capabilities. You could talk about your abilities. You could say, Here are my red lines. If you cross him, I'm gonna punch you back. If you do that, then by the way, you've gotta punch back. They'll let red lines be crossed and then not respond. And then you're gonna talk about some level of capabilities. It can't all be secret. Can't all be classified. Where >> are we in this debate? Me first. Well, you're referring to the Thursday online attack against the intelligence Iranian intelligence community for the tanker and the drone strike that they got together. Drone take down for an arm in our surveillance drones. >> But where are we >> in this debate of having this conversation where the government should protect and serve its people? And that's the role. Because if a army rolled in fiscal army dropped on the shores of Manhattan, I don't think Citibank would be sending their people out the fight. Right? Right. So, like, this is really happening. >> Where are we >> on this? Like, is it just sitting there on the >> table? What's happening? What's amazing about it? Hi. This was getting it going well, that that's a Q. What's been amazing? It's been happening since 2012 2011 right? We know about the Las Vegas Sands attack right by Iran. We know about North Korea's. We know about all these. They're going on here in the United States against private sector companies, not against the government. And there's largely been no response. Now we've seen Congress get more active. Congress just last year passed to pass legislation that gave Cyber command the authority on the president's surgery defenses orders to take action against Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. If certain cyber has happened, that's a good thing, right to give it. I'll be giving the clear authority right, and it appears the president willing to make some steps in that direction, So that's a positive step. Now, on the back end, though, you talk about what we do to harden ourselves, if that's gonna happen, right, and the government isn't ready today to defend the nation, even though the Constitution is about providing for the common defense, and we know that the part of defense for long. For a long time since Secretary Panetta has said that it is our mission to defend the nation, right? But we know they're not fully doing that. How do they empower private sector defense and one of keys That has got to be Look, if you're the intelligence community or the U. S. Government, you're Clinton. Tremendous sense of Dad about what you're seeing in foreign space about what the enemy is doing, what they're preparing for. You have got to share that in real time at machine speed with industry. And if you're not doing that and you're still count on industry to be the first line defense, well, then you're not empowered. That defense. And if you're on a pair of the defense, how do you spend them to defend themselves against the nation? State threats? That's a real cry. So >> much tighter public private relationship. >> Absolutely, absolutely. And it doesn't have to be the government stand in the front lines of the U. S. Internet is, though, is that you could even determine the boundaries of the U. S. Internet. Right? Nobody wants an essay or something out there doing that, but you do want is if you're gonna put the private sector in the in the line of first defense. We gotta empower that defense if you're not doing that than the government isn't doing its job. And so we gonna talk about this for a long time. I worked on that first piece of information sharing legislation with the House chairman, intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger from Maryland, right congressman from both sides of the aisle, working together to get a fresh your decision done that got done in 2015. But that's just a first step. The government's got to be willing to share classified information, scaled speed. We're still not seeing that. Yeah, How >> do people get involved? I mean, like, I'm not a political person. I'm a moderate in the middle. But >> how do I How do people get involved? How does the technology industry not not the >> policy budgets and the top that goes on the top tech companies, how to tech workers or people who love Tad and our patriots and or want freedom get involved? What's the best approach? >> Well, that's a great question. I think part of is learning how to talk policy. How do we get in front policymakers? Right. And we're I run. I run a think tank on the side at the National Institute at George Mason University's Anton Scalia Law School Way have a program funded by the Hewlett Foundation who were bringing in technologists about 25 of them. Actually. Our next our second event. This Siri's is gonna be in Chicago this weekend. We're trained these technologies, these air data scientists, engineers and, like talk Paul's right. These are people who said We want to be involved. We just don't know how to get involved And so we're training him up. That's a small program. There's a great program called Tech Congress, also funded by the U. A. Foundation that places technologists in policy positions in Congress. That's really cool. There's a lot of work going on, but those are small things, right. We need to do this, its scale. And so you know, what I would say is that their technology out there want to get involved, reach out to us, let us know well with our partners to help you get your information and dad about what's going on. Get your voice heard there. A lot of organizations to that wanna get technologies involved. That's another opportunity to get in. Get in the building is a >> story that we want to help tell on be involved in David. I feel passion about this. Is a date a problem? So there's some real tech goodness in there. Absolutely. People like to solve hard problems, right? I mean, we got a couple days of them. You've got a big heart problems. It's also for all the people out there who are Dev Ops Cloud people who like to work on solving heart problems. >> We got a lot >> of them. Let's do it. So what's going on? Iron? Give us the update Could plug for the company. Keith Alexander found a great guy great guests having on the Cube. That would give the quick thanks >> so much. So, you know, way have done two rounds of funding about 110,000,000. All in so excited. We have partners like Kleiner Perkins Forge point C five all supporting us. And now it's all about We just got a new co CEO in Bill Welshman. See Scaler and duo. So he grew Z scaler. $1,000,000,000 valuation he came in to do Oh, you know, they always had a great great exit. Also, we got him. We got Sean Foster in from from From Industry also. So Bill and Sean came together. We're now making this business move more rapidly. We're moving to the mid market. We're moving to a cloud platform or aggressively and so exciting times and iron it. We're coming toe big and small companies near you. We've got the capability. We're bringing advanced, persistent defense to bear on his heart problems that were threat analytics. I collected defence. That's the key to our operation. We're excited >> to doing it. I call N S A is a service, but that's not politically correct. But this is the Cube, so >> Well, look, if you're not, if you want to defensive scale, right, you want to do that. You know, ECE knows how to do that key down here at the forefront of that when he was in >> the government. Well, you guys are certainly on the cutting edge, riding that wave of common societal change technology impact for good, for defence, for just betterment, not make making a quick buck. Well, you know, look, it's a good business model by the way to be in that business. >> I mean, It's on our business cards. And John Xander means it. Our business. I'd say the Michigan T knows that he really means that, right? Rather private sector. We're looking to help companies to do the right thing and protect the nation, right? You know, I protect themselves >> better. Well, our missions to turn the lights on. Get those voices out there. Thanks for coming on. Sharing the lights. Keep covers here. Day one of two days of coverage. Eight of us reinforce here in Boston. Stay with us for more Day one after this short break.

>> Live from San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. Brought to you by IBM. >> Hi everybody, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of the IBM Chief Data Officer Event. We're here at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco at the Centric Hyatt Hotel. This is the 10th anniversary of IBM's Chief Data Officer Summits. In the recent years, anyway, they do one in San Francisco and one in Boston each year, and theCUBE has covered a number of them. I think this is our eighth CDO conference. I'm Dave Vellante, and theCUBE, we like to go out, especially to events like this that are intimate, there's about 140 chief data officers here. We've had the chief data officer from AstraZeneca on, even though he doesn't take that title. We've got a panel coming up later on in the day. And I want to talk about the evolution of that role. The chief data officer emerged out of kind of a wonky, back-office role. It was all about 10, 12 years ago, data quality, master data management, governance, compliance. And as the whole big data meme came into focus and people were realizing that data is the new source of competitive advantage, that data was going to be a source of innovation, what happened was that role emerged, that CDO, chief data officer role, emerged out of the back office and came right to the front and center. And the chief data officer really started to better understand and help companies understand how to monetize the data. Now monetization of data could mean more revenue. It could mean cutting costs. It could mean lowering risk. It could mean, in a hospital situation, saving lives, sort of broad definition of monetization. But it was really understanding how data contributed to value, and then finding ways to operationalize that to speed up time to value, to lower cost, to lower risk. And that required a lot of things. It required new skill sets, new training. It required a partnership with the lines of business. It required new technologies like artificial intelligence, which have just only recently come into a point where it's gone mainstream. Of course, when I started in the business several years ago, AI was the hot topic, but you didn't have the compute power. You didn't have the data, you didn't have the cloud. So we see the new innovation engine, not as Moore's Law, the doubling of transistors every 18 months, doubling of performance. Really no, we see the new innovation cocktail as data as the substrate, applying machine intelligence to that data, and then scaling it with the cloud. And through that cloud model, being able to attract startups and innovation. I come back to the chief data officer here, and IBM Chief Data Officer Summit, that's really where the chief data officer comes in. Now, the role in the organization is fuzzy. If you ask people what's a chief data officer, you'll get 20 different answers. Many answers are focused on compliance, particularly in what emerged, again, in those regulated industries: financial service, healthcare, and government. Those are the first to have chief data officers. But now CDOs have gone mainstream. So what we're seeing here from IBM is the broadening of that role and that definition and those responsibilities. Confusing things is the chief digital officer or the chief analytics officer. Those are roles that have also emerged, so there's a lot of overlap and a lot of fuzziness. To whom should the chief data officer report? Many say it should not be the CIO. Many say they should be peers. Many say the CIO's responsibility is similar to the chief data officer, getting value out of data, although I would argue that's never really been the case. The role of the CIO has largely been to make sure that the technology infrastructure works and that applications are delivered with high availability, with great performance, and are able to be developed in an agile manner. That's sort of a more recent sort of phenomenon that's come forth. And the chief digital officer is really around the company's face. What does that company's brand look like? What does that company's go-to-market look like? What does the customer see? Whereas the chief data officer's really been around the data strategy, what the sort of framework should be around compliance and governance, and, again, monetization. Not that they're responsible for the monetization, but they responsible for setting that framework and then communicating it across the company, accelerating the skill sets and the training of existing staff and complementing with new staff and really driving that framework throughout the organization in partnership with the chief digital officer, the chief analytics officer, and the chief information officer. That's how I see it anyway. Martin Schroeder, the senior vice president of IBM, came on today with Inderpal Bhandari, who is the chief data officer of IBM, the global chief data officer. Martin Schroeder used to be the CFO at IBM. He talked a lot, kind of borrowing from Ginni Rometty's themes in previous conferences, chapter one of digital which he called random acts of digital, and chapter two is how to take this mainstream. IBM makes a big deal out of the fact that it doesn't appropriate your data, particularly your personal data, to sell ads. IBM's obviously in the B2B business, so that's IBM's little back-ended shot at Google and Facebook and Amazon who obviously appropriate our data to sell ads or sell goods. IBM doesn't do that. I'm interested in IBM's opinion on big tech. There's a lot of conversations now. Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech. IBM was under the watchful eye of the DOJ 25 years ago, 30 years ago. IBM essentially had a monopoly in the business, and the DOJ wanted to make sure that IBM wasn't using that monopoly to hurt consumers and competitors. Now what IBM did, the DOJ ruled that IBM had to separate its applications business, actually couldn't be in the applications business. Another ruling was that they had to publish the interfaces to IBM mainframes so that competitors could actually build plug-compatible products. That was the world back then. It was all about peripherals plugging into mainframes and sort of applications being developed. So the DOJ took away IBM's power. Fast forward 30 years, now we're hearing Google, Amazon, and Facebook coming under fire from politicians. Should they break up those companies? Now those companies are probably the three leaders in AI. IBM might debate that. I think generally, at theCUBE and SiliconANGLE, we believe that those three companies are leading the charge in AI, along with China Inc: Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, et cetera, and the Chinese government. So here's the question. What would happen if you broke up big tech? I would surmise that if you break up big tech, those little techs that you break up, Amazon Web Services, WhatsApp, Instagram, those little techs would get bigger. Now, however, the government is implying that it wants to break those up because those entities have access to our data. Google's got access to all the search data. If you start splitting them up, that'll make it harder for them to leverage that data. I would argue those small techs would get bigger, number one. Number two, I would argue if you're worried about China, which clearly you're seeing President Trump is worried about China, placing tariffs on China, playing hardball with China, which is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing because China has been accused, and we all know, of taking IP, stealing IP essentially, and really not putting in those IP protections. So, okay, playing hardball to try to get a quid pro quo on IP protections is a good thing. Not good for trade long term. I'd like to see those trade barriers go away, but if it's a negotiation tactic, okay. I can live with it. However, going after the three AI leaders, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, and trying to take them down or break them up, actually, if you're a nationalist, could be a bad thing. Why would you want to handcuff the AI leaders? Third point is unless they're breaking the law. So I think that should be the decision point. Are those three companies, and others, using monopoly power to thwart competition? I would argue that Microsoft actually did use its monopoly power back in the '80s and '90s, in particular in the '90s, when it put Netscape out of business, it put Lotus out of business, it put WordPerfect out of business, it put Novell out of the business. Now, maybe those are strong words, but in fact, Microsoft's bundling, its pricing practices, caught those companies off guard. Remember, Jim Barksdale, the CEO of Netscape, said we don't need the browser. He was wrong. Microsoft killed Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer into its operating system. So the DOJ stepped in, some would argue too late, and put handcuffs on Microsoft so they couldn't use that monopoly power. And I would argue that you saw from that two things. One, granted, Microsoft was overly focused on Windows. That was kind of their raison d'etre, and they missed a lot of other opportunities. But the DOJ definitely slowed them down, and I think appropriately. And if out of that myopic focus on Windows, and to a certain extent, the Department of Justice and the government, the FTC as well, you saw the emergence of internet companies. Now, Microsoft did a major pivot to the internet. They didn't do a major pivot to the cloud until Satya Nadella came in, and now Microsoft is one of those other big tech companies that is under the watchful eye. But I think Microsoft went through that and perhaps learned its lesson. We'll see what happens with Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Facebook, in particular, seems to be conflicted right now. Should we take down a video that has somewhat fake news implications or is a deep hack? Or should we just dial down? We saw this recently with Facebook. They dialed down the promotion. So you almost see Facebook trying to have its cake and eat it too, which personally, I don't think that's the right approach. I think Facebook either has to say damn the torpedoes. It's open content, we're going to promote it. Or do the right thing and take those videos down, those fake news videos. It can't have it both ways. So Facebook seems to be somewhat conflicted. They are probably under the most scrutiny now, as well as Google, who's being accused, anyway, certainly we've seen this in the EU, of promoting its own ads over its competitors' ads. So people are going to be watching that. And, of course, Amazon just having too much power. Having too much power is not necessarily an indication of abusing monopoly power, but you know the government is watching. So that bears watching. theCUBE is going to be covering that. We'll be here all day, covering the IBM CDO event. I'm Dave Vallente, you're watching theCUBE. #IBMCDO, DM us or Tweet us @theCUBE. I'm @Dvallente, keep it right there. We'll be right back right after this short break. (upbeat music)