(upbeat music) >> Hello, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of AWS re:Invent 2021. We're here in the studios in Palo Alto, California. Two great guests Linda Tong, general manager of Cisco AppDynamics and Garrick Linn, architect of operations at Match.com. Thanks for joining us. We're talking about AppDynamics, Match.com and customer experience. Mainly around cloud migration. So Linda, great to see you and Garrick, thanks for coming on theCUBE. >> Great to see you again. Thank you for having us. >> Same here. >> Linda, you're a CUBE alumni. we've talked about cloud migration application performance, modern application development, all powered by the Cloud, right? So this is really key and people are relying on the cloud and cloud scale and data to drive the digital transformation, the digital services and applications right now. How has the pandemic affected your customers and their expectations for digital experiences? >> Oh boy, I mean the pandemic has been, it has been rough for our customers, you know, and part of that is what Garrick's going to tell you a little bit more about today, but folks are seeing this increase in expectancy of accelerated speed and delivering innovation, building great applications and iterating on them quickly. And frankly, their customers' demands we're engaging with them through digital services. And that has led to this massive increase in, one, the types of technologies that they're consuming to build and deliver these applications. And two the complexity upon how they actually wrap their arms around it and understand what's going on and deliver these great experiences. And so it's been a rough road for our customers and what we find with AppDynamics and Cisco is our ability to partner with our customers to help them wrap their arms around that complexity. >> John: Garrick, I'd love to get your commentary on this because I'll say, Match.com has been at large-scale for many, many years, and now the pandemic comes in now a new user experience, more accelerated, more action, more things are happening, right? So this is truly the hybrid world coming together. I mean, it is kind of the same game, but kind of new patterns are emerging. What have you seen in the pandemic around the expectations and the services and you guys are providing in the digital experiences? >> Yeah, sure. So as you mentioned, Match has been around for quite some time. We've been here for over 25 years. We have an interesting mix, heterogeneous, technology, some old stuff, some new stuff. A lot of the mentality that we try to bring is to innovate. The pandemic was, it brought a lot of uncertainty. We weren't really sure how people were going to react. Was it going to be everybody kind of hunkers down on dating definitely is something that requires human interaction in multiple levels. And it turned out that people were still very much interested in getting to a place where they can find human connections and you know Match as a premium product tries to make that delightful. And so we had our hands full, especially at the beginning, things like, by checking the video features, how does that work? What are the expectations? Is that going to creep people out? If we try to offer that, are they going to use it? How are they going to date? How are they going to talk? How can we make sure that they're safe? All these kinds of things went into it. And so when we have been using AppDynamics for you know, years now, well before the pandemic, and we use that in order to get a gauge, not just on the type of traffic and load, but also, "Hey, you've got these new features, "how do they fit into this huge complex environment?" And so some of those timelines that maybe were a little bit more relaxed were very much accelerated, And like a lot of companies, we had to figure out how to deliver on that. >> John: Yeah, Linda, I want to get your thoughts. We've talked about in the past, AppDynamics has been a leader in really accelerating the value for customers. Now with the pandemic, you mentioned these new experiences are being pulled in from the physical world, right? So you have things that were happening on digital in the application space. Now you have more experiences coming in because there's no places to meet face to face. Now it's coming together, but people have been seeing the value. Well, if I can't meet in person Match.com are going to do some things, new things, online chat, whatever. This dynamic of old way, new way is changing and cloud is powering that. What are you seeing in terms of your customers' journeys around what was once pre-pandemic and now post-pandemic? >> Well, a big part of that is more and more of these experiences rely on digital services and these amazing sort of ways to connect with each other and in a very digital space, expectations of customers have changed. So not only do you experience applications and you want it to be simple, easy to use, delightful, and it delivers on the needs that you want. But on top of that, you expect it to be performant. You expect it to be secure. You expect there to be frankly, no hiccups whatsoever, because now this is your way to connect with others. This is your way to find dates or go on dates. And the last thing you want, is watching your screen pixelate, as you're trying to have an important conversation. And these kinds of experiences and these challenges as people build more and more of these digital services to build these connections, frankly, require a lot more of folks like Garrick and his team. They now have to deliver amazing experiences with perfect performance, no security risks, no bumps in the night. And that's really tough, right? Expectations have gone through the roof. >> John: Yeah, the whole story on that one point, just to kind of add live in this was that that whole concept of moving fast used to take months, right? I mean, weeks, months, now it's days and hours. So months to weeks, days and hours but Garrick, this is the challenge. This is the opportunity with the cloud. Can you just take us through your cloud journey and your goals and some of the impacts that has had on your transition to the cloud? What does that look like? >> Yeah, so we've had our on-prem data centers for quite some time, and we started putting our toe in, I guess, although it was a kind of intense at the beginning, just trying to get people on board and to say, "Hey, this is possible." We started out with a fairly small SWAT team then managed within a couple of months, working closely with our developers. We have a lot of smart people, you know, with background or overall, just security folks over devs to just demonstrate that we could do it. So we managed to take something like 80% of our front end traffic for most of the day, just kind of spinning that up, learning lessons from that, knowing what we didn't know. AppDynamics, if we didn't have that would have been almost impossible to get a read if for no other reason, then just one little tidbit. We used to have a data center in Virginia. And so physics being what it is, you know, there's just been a flight that we have to contend with. And for a couple, few years, we hadn't had the 30 millisecond or so round trip latency on there. So all of a sudden we're going back to the cloud that reintroduced this latency. So what does that mean? Will you be asked to sort of glide by and absorb it? How do we track it? How can we figure out what the Delta is between, you know, here's how we've done things on-prem. Here's how it looks out here. If you are the cross, you know, calls and, you know, AppDynamics was what we used to be able to get a read and say, "Hey, look, it isn't as good as we know we can make it, but it's something, it's a starting point. Here's why, we can show you the graphs. We can show you the data. Let's do this thing." So we then pulled back and we have focused this year on actually our affinity apps, which is a collection of applications that are also going to be okay just in, and so we've been asked to get those completely migrated over. We're going to be running in hybrid mode for a while. We're going to need to be able to compare apples to apples, apples to orangutans, all that. And this is one of the main things for you, we describe. >> {John] If I can just follow up on that just real quick, because I think this is a good point. You got the data points, you double down on that. You're looking at real data, and then you look at success and you double down, that's the playbook. So, and the other thing is that you guys actually have a real operation that's running full throttled, right? (John laughs) So, yeah, so I can see that nice balance. What does the future look like beyond that? Because when you got a business that's scaling, it's running, it's like changing the airplane engine out at 30,000 feet. You got to continue to push the envelope. >> Yup, so, and no, exactly right. Again, we're a premium product. And so we've got to back that up. And that means, maintaining high availability. And so over the next few years, we're going to be looking at what have we already do? What can we move in piecemeal kind of way where it makes sense? What are the things that we can rethink? We're also using AppDynamics as part of our containerization initiative. You know, we've got lots of virtual infrastructure, but what is it, again, what does it look like on-prem, in a container, go down the list of different things that might be different. And then to be able to compare that to what it looks like, in the cloud. So it's going to be a while yet, but like a lot of companies, when we got into this, we didn't think it was going to be done in six months. Even if we have to deliver those features at a much faster rate, we know that the long haul, we got to make smart decisions and plan the capacity, and, you know, get there. (chuckles) >> John: That's a real pragmatic approach. Linda, you and I both are sports fans. We've talked in the past about sports, and the old adage, what inning are we in growth? It's to use that baseball metaphor. I would say it's a double header, game one won by the cloud, game two is happening now. And the trend is this end-to-end mature, operationally focused customer base. And IT, where IT has shifted to the cloud right now. And they're having this new view of what modern is. End-to-end, understanding different stacks relative to applications. It's not as simple as it was before, but it's relevant. Can you share your views on how that's playing out because, or do you agree with that? And do you see that as an important part of the customer? >> Yeah, I mean, I think it's, that complexity that the IT organizations are seeing now, as they fully adopt the cloud for all their new applications and start to migrate some of their existing applications over. That world is only increasing in complexity. The way that you can virtualize your applications, break them out into millions of services, the dependencies you have on third party applications or SaaS services. These things only add that many more data points that you now have to cover and think about and make sure that those things deliver upon their SLAs, right? And wrapping your arms around that requires a partner to help you separate signal from noise. Because now you're going into a world without simplicity that you just mentioned has gotten to some point where it's beyond what you can actually sort of keep in your mind. Beyond what you can just look at data and sift through and understand, you really need tools and systems that come together, and understand that data for you and start to represent your business to you in a new way and abstract away those layers of complexity. While you do that, because I think, as you talk about those innings, that first inning, second inning, or rather first game, second game in the series, it's not a full migration to the cloud, right? There are going to be some applications that stay on-prem that stay in their traditional environments and may never move. And then some of them are going to go hybrid. Some will keep parts of the applications on-prem, and they're going to start to modularize components of it. And so it's not going to be sort of a mass scale migration. And then we're all in the promised land. And we deal with the cloud complexity. It's going to be ever increasing complexity. As we now introduce so many variants of applications, so many variants of technology, and what people are going to need is someone who can help them cover that entire estate and understand it at scale. >> John: Yeah, I mean, I think it's the enterprise conversion, if you will of cloud operations on-premises because of the reasons. And now you've got the edge. Garrick, this is the whole kind of end-to-end stack conversation view. And by the way, there isn't one tech stack to rule them all because you have different use cases. You might have an application that needs a financial gateway or have other capabilities. So integration's huge. This only increases the point Linda was making about complexity behind the scenes. How does AppDynamics help you with this for Match.com? >> So we have quite a bit of infrastructure, you know, a lot of it is shared, well, most of all, maintaining, sandboxes for user data and that sort of thing. And so now the navigating that space is always interesting. So for instance, one of the new things that we have coming out is Star.com It's out there right now. It's a dating site that's geared towards single parents. It does share some of the infrastructure, but we're realizing what that means, how is that different, how our registration flow is different, how our subscription flow is different. Where are the things that DevOps are actively trying to improve on and rethink? That's one of the things that we try to focus on when we're trying to kind of pick out, like, is this a good candidate to move over to the cloud sooner or later? Is this a good candidate for something that needs to be maybe bake a little bit more? And having established those baselines with the shared infrastructure, and having a pretty good understanding of how they react, how they work really helps us, you know, tee up these new initiatives and in front of those needs in a more efficient way. So yeah, absolutely. >> John: What's some of the activity you guys seen? And what's the peak activity on Match.com these days? >> Yeah, so dating apps in general, but not so particular we use a nested or breast fractal peak, and it's a pattern that, from what they told me back in the old days, took a little while to realize was a thing. And not just like, oh we changed something and then did this and produced that. So every evening is our peak basically. So with taking time zones into account, obviously, in the United States from about five to 10 o'clock at night or so, we get this, growing, burst of traffic. So that can be anywhere from 23% sometimes. It kind of varies. Then we have a weekly peak where every, you know, Sunday and Monday we expect a higher amount of traffic than we would other days. And it kind of makes sense from an Archer psychology kind of standpoint where, you know, you're coming off of dates, you're trying to set dates up. That's where a lot of that activity is. And then we have a yearly peak, which goes from around Christmas to President's day. Believe it or not, it's President's day, it's not Valentine's day. And so the sort of thing where when we're trying to plan for capacity and we do a lot of, what cost squeeze tests, were not quite as I guess, engineering, but hey, what does it look like if we go down in capacity by 50%, what happens? where are the weak points? A January, Monday night is very different from a May, Thursday in June (chuckles). So we have to predict, we can anticipate some of that, but we don't know for sure, a lot can change in a year. So when we're preparing for a yearly peak, we really have to pay attention. We have to prep. We have to plan for that and work with that to figure out how we can get through it and maintain that level of service. >> That's awesome, and AppDynamics to help you to do that. I'd love to get a bot to give me the optimal dating times, to share with my single friends. Great stuff. Linda, thank you for coming. Great to see you. Congratulations on a great case study. Great story. How large-scale applications and are working in the modern cloud. So congratulations on your success. Thanks for coming on theCUBE. Appreciate it. >> Awesome, thank you, so good to be here. >> Okay, CUBE coverage of re:Invent 2021. I'm John Furrier with theCUBE. Thanks for watching. (upbeat music)

>> Announcer: Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering Splunk .conf19 , brought to you by Splunk. >> Okay, welcome back, everyone. It's theCUBE's live coverage of, we're on day three of our three days of coverage of .conf from Splunk. This is their 10th anniversary, and theCUBE has been there along the way, riding the data wave with them, covering all the action. Our next guest is Jill Cagliostro, who's a product strategist at Anomali, who also has a sister in cyber. So she's got the cyber sisters going on. Jill, great to have you on. Looking forward to hearing about your story. >> Great, thanks. I'm glad to be here. I've been in the security industry for about seven years now. I started when I was 19, and my sister had started before me. She's a few years older than me, and she started out doing defense contracting on the cyber side. And she just kind of ended up in the internship looking for a summer job, and she fell in love. And as I got to kind of learn about what she was doing and how it all worked together, I started to pursue it at Georgia Tech. And I joined our on campus hacker's group club, Grey Hat. I was the first female executive. That was fun. I ended up getting an internship from there with ConocoPhillips and Bishop Fox, and moved on to the vendor side eventually with a brief stop in security operations. >> And so you have a computer science degree from Georgia Tech, is that right? >> I do, and I'm actually pursuing my master's in their online master's in cyber security program right now as well. >> Awesome. Georgia Tech, great school. One of the best computer science programs. Been following it for years. Amazing graduates come out of there. >> Yeah, we've got some pretty impressive graduates. >> So you just jumped right into cyber, okay. Male-dominated field. More women are coming in, more than ever now because there's a big surface area in security. What's your-- What attracted you to cyber? So, I love that it's evolving, and it allows you to think about problems in different ways, right. It's a new problem, there's new issues to solve, and I've been exposed to technology from a young age. I went to an all girls high school which had a really strong focus on STEM. So, I took my first computer science class at 15, and it was in an environment of all women that were incredibly supportive. I actually started a scholarship at our high school to get more women to look at technology longer term as career options, and I go back and speak and teach them that technology is more than coding. There's product management, there's, you know, customer success, there's sales engineering, there's marketing, there's so much more in the space than just coding. So, I really try to help the younger generation see that and explore their options. >> You know that's a great point, and, you know, when I was in the computer science back in the '80s, it was coding. And then it was--well, I got lucky it was systems also, a lot of operating systems, and Linux revolution was just begun coming on the scene. But it's more than that. There's data, data analytics. There's a whole creative side of it. There's a nerdy math side. >> The user experience. >> John: There's a huge area. >> Work flows and processes is something that is so needed in the security industry, right. It's how you do everything. It's how you retain knowledge. It's how you train your new staff. And even just building processes, is something that can be tedious, but it can be so powerful. And if that's something your used to doing, it can be a great field to build. >> Well, you're here. It's our third day at the .conf, our seventh year here. What's your take of Splunk, because you're coming in guns blaring in the industry. You've got your cyber sister; she's at AWS. You see Splunk now. They've got a lot of capabilities. What's the security conversations like? What are people talking about? What's the top story in your mind here at .comf for security and Splunk? >> Yeah, so I'm actually a Splunk certified architect as well. Splunk was one of the first security tools that I really got to play with, so it's near and dear to my heart. And I get to work with-- I'm over at Anomali, which is a threat intelligence company, and I get to work with our own art, Splunk integration. So, what we do is we enable you to bring your intelligence into Splunk to search against all of the logs that you're bringing there to help you find the known data in your environment. And so, that's if you're a Splunk Enterprise customer or Splunk Core. But if you're an Enterprise Security customer, they have the threat intel component of their product, which we integrate with seamlessly. So, the components are really easy to work with, and we help you manage your intelligence a little bit more effectively, so you can significantly reduce your false positive rate while working within the framework you're comfortable in. And one of the-- >> What's the problem-- What's the problems statement that you guys solve? Is there one specific thing? >> God, there's--Yes there's quite a few issues, right. I would say the biggest thing that we solve is enabling our customers to operationalize their intelligence. There's so much information out there about the known bad, and CCOs and CEOs are sending emails every day, "Are we impacted? "Are we safe?" And we enable you to answer those questions very easily and very effectively. One of the other big trends we see is there is an issue in knowledge gaps, right. The industry is evolving so quickly. There's so much to know. Data on everything, right. So, we have another way that we can work with Splunk that isn't a direct integration, and it's our product called Anomali Lens. And what it does is it uses natural language processing to interpret the page that you're on and bring the threat intelligence to you. So, if you're looking at a Splunk search page, you know, investigating an incident on brute force, and you have a seemingly random list of IPs in front of you, and you need to know what does everyone else know about these, to make your job easier, you can scan it with Lens, and it'll bring the information right there to you. You don't have to go anywhere else. You can stay in the Splunk UI that you love. >> What's some exciting things you're working on now that you think people should know about that if maybe covered in the press or in the media or in general? What is some exciting areas that are happening? >> Yeah, so Lens is pretty exciting for us. We just launched that last month. We're doing a lot. So, we also have a product called Anomali Match, which is purpose built for threat intel because often what we see is when a breach happens, the indicators that you need to know if they're in your environment, they don't come to light until six months to a year later. And then being able to go backwards in time to answer that question of were you impacted can be very difficult and very expensive, right. Anomali Match is purpose built to answer those questions. So, as the indicators become available, you know immediately was I impacted on the order of seconds. So, it just enables you to answer your CEOs a little faster, right, and get better visibility into your environment. >> So when you look at data to everything, how do you see it evolving as more volume comes in? There's more threat surface area out there. >> Right, and continues to increase it's bounds. >> How should people be thinking about it as they zoom out and think architecturally, "I got to lay out my enterprise strategy. "I bought a few tools that try to be platforms, "but I need a broader playbook. "I need something bigger to help me." >> You've got to take a step back and get a little altitude, right? >> John: Yeah, take a little step back, yeah. >> Yeah, so threat intelligence should really be driving your whole security practice. We already know, for the most part, who's attacking who and what they're trying to do. And so, threat intelligence shouldn't just be an integration into Splunk, although that is a critical component of it. It should be informing, you know, your security practices where you stand up offices. There may be locations that are higher risk for you as a particular type of entity. And all this information is available, but you have to just get access to it. You need one place to stop where you can google the threat intel, and that's what Anomali ThreatStream, our flagship product, aims to do. And Lens just makes it more accessible than ever. Rather than having to go look it up yourself, it brings it to you. And so, we're trying to augment the knowledge base without having to memorize everything. That's what we need to do is we need to find ways to bring this information and make it more accessible so you don't have to look in three tools to find it. >> So, I got to ask you and change topics. As the younger generation comes into the industry, one of the things that I'm seeing as a trend is more developers are coming in. And it's not just so much devops, whose clouds gray, we love devops, but ops, network ops and security ops, are also a big part of it. People are building applications now. So, like, you're seeing startups that have been tech for good startups coming out, where you're seeing a great examples of people literally standing up applications with data. What's the young generation-- because there's a hacker culture out there that can move fast, solve a problem, but they don't have to provision a lot of stuff. That's what cloud computing does. But now Splunk's the world. Data's becoming more accessible. Data's the raw materials to get that asset or that value. What are developers-- how do you see the developers programming with data? >> So, they're looking at their jobs and saying, "What am I bored doing "that I have to do over and over every day, "and how can I automate it?" So, there's a lot of store technology. Splunk also has Phantom, and that's enabling our developers, our younger generation who grew up around Python and coding, to quickly plug a few pieces together and automate half their jobs, which gives them the time to do the really interesting stuff, the stuff that requires human intervention and interpretation, and analysis that can't be coded. And it's just giving us more time and more resources to put-- >> What kind of things are they doing with that extra time? Creative things, pet projects, or critical problems? >> Oh, God, so many pet projects. God, what are you interested in? I've seen things being done to like mine bit coin on the side, right, to make a little extra cash. That's always fun. I've seen people automate their social media profile. I've seen threat researchers use scripting to help them find new information on the internet and reshare it to build their public brand. That's a really big component of the younger generation that I don't think was as big in previous generations, where your public brand matters more than ever. And so, we're bringing that into everything we do. It's not just a job, it's a lifestyle. >> Sharing's a big ethos, too, sharing data. How important is sharing data in the security culture? >> Oh, it's critical. So, I mean, sharing data's been happening for forever, right. Company A has always been calling up their friend at company B, "Hey, we see this thing. "You might want to take a look, "but you didn't hear it from me," right. But through intel platforms, not just ThreatStream but all of them, allow you to share information at a larger scale ever than ever before. But it also, it gives you the ability to remain anonymous. Everyone's really scared to put into writing, "Hey, we saw this at our company," 'cause there's the risk of attribution, there's legal requirements, right. But with automated sharing you can retain a little bit of-- you can be a little bit anonymous. So, you can help the others be protected without exposing yourself to additional risk. >> Jill, you're awesome to have on theCUBE. Love to get the perspective of the young, up and coming, computer science, cyber, cyber sister. >> Cyber sister. >> John: You can just, other--where does she work? Amazon? >> She's over at AWS now. She just moved over a couple of weeks ago. We actually used to work together at Anomali. She did presales, and I did post sales. It was a lot of fun. >> And she hooked you into security, didn't she? >> Oh, she did, for better or worse, although I hope she's not watching. >> She will. She'll get a clip of this, I'll make sure. Jill, final question. The Splunk this year .conf, what's your takeaway? What are you going to take back to the office with you or share with your friends if they say, "Hey, what was the big story happening at Splunk this year?" What's going on here this year? >> The big thing is the data. The data is more accessible than ever before, so we're being challenged by Splunk to find new ways to use it, to innovate new ways. And I think that's kind of been their messaging the whole time, "Hey, we're giving you the power to do what you want. "What are you going to do with it?" This is my third Splunk conference in a row, and every year it just gets more and more exciting. I can't wait to see what next year holds. >> They allow people to deal with data, messy data to good data. >> Clean it up. >> John: Clean it up >> Make it easy to search across multiple data sources from one command line. Their user experience is the most intuitive I've used in terms of the log management solutions. >> Jill, great to have you, great insights. Thanks for sharing the data >> Thanks so much, John. >> John: here on theCUBE. Sharing data on theCUBE, that's what we do. We bring the data, the guests, we try to create it for you. Of course, we're data-driven, we're a CUBE-driven. I'm John Furrier, here from .conf, the 10th anniversary. We've been here from the beginning, riding the data tsunami waves. Waves plural 'cause there's more waves coming. I'm John Furrier. Thanks for watching. (upbeat music)

>> Live from Barcelona, Spain. it's theCUBE. Covering KubeCon CloudNativeCon Europe 2019. Brought to you by Red Hat, the Cloud Native Computing Foundation and ecosystem partners. >> Welcome back to theCUBE, two days live coverage here in Barcelona, Spain at KubeCon CloudNativeCon 2019. I'm Stu Miniman. My co-host is Corey Quinn, and happy to welcome to the program first-time guest Vijoy Pandey, who's the vice president and CTO of Cloud at Cisco, and Vijoy, it's a relatively new job for you. Something we're still measuring in months. So, why don't we start there, give our audience a little bit of your background and what brought you to the Cisco Cloud team? >> Sure, so first of all thank you Stu, thank you Corey. Glad to be here. Yes, I am measuring my tenure right now in months. It was days, now it's months, soon it will be years and soon it will be forgotten, but I did come from Google. I spent a whole bunch of time there in the networking space. I actually ran their data center footprint. I also ran the ram footprint for a couple of years. And then I ended up building the automation, modeling, telemetry, data analytic stack for all of their physical infrastructure, for a while. >> Okay, so how much time do we have? Because I always put out there, I'm an networking guy by background and if you talk about just the Google network, how do we get our search results, and our ads to us globally in a short period of time. And you talk about undersea cables, I mean, Google was the example. The first time I heard about SDN and what that was going to be, oh, well lets look at what Google was doing, and when Cloud rolled out, Google's network was really second to none. Now of course, you move over to Cisco, which knows a thing or two about networking. Can you tell us some of those, I guess help connect the dots for me. We've had this premise that the hyperweb scale, what they have done, is what's bleeding into the enterprise. That's what Kubernetes is, what Google did at Boar. And from a networking standpoint, some of the things that the top 20 hyper-scale companies were doing we're now starting to see into the enterprise. Does that premise hold water for you? >> Yeah, that's correct. But what I think what you need to realize is that not everybody is hyper-scaler, not everybody is a Google. But there are concepts and there are mechanisms that Google has used and AWS and Facebook and the others have used, that are very, very relevant to large enterprises, to large service providers, and that is the opportunity. You asked me earlier, why I came and joined Cisco, and you're right, Cisco is the big behemoth in the networking space. And there is a little bit of disconnect in how the hyper-scalers have approached networking in the past couple of years, or few years. And how Cisco's customers and Cisco's global market has been approaching their customers over the past couple of decades. So trying to bridge that gap is what's exciting. And I think there are a lot of concepts that have been developed in the hyper-scalers space that do apply. For example, like you said, SDN is a big one. It simplifies how you do networking. Automation is the other big one. So we see, I've seen in the eight months I've been here, most of our customers looking for an automation platform to build at the same agility and on the same zero-offs mentality that the Googles and AWSs have done. So bringing those concepts within Cisco and giving it to our customers is where the opportunity is. >> If I go back in time, 15 years or so, and I want to start a 50-person company, there's no way I'm going to be able to effectively do that without at least one network engineer on the staff, or almost any reasonable company. Today if something starts up that's cloud-native, a lot of that starts to instead be pushed onto the networks of sort that you used to build at Google, or folks doing the similar things at AWS. Do you see that as a longer-term trend where enterprises are going to start moving in that type of direction as well? Or do you see that enterprises are always going to have specific needs that are not going to be met by the hyper-scale public clouds? >> Yeah, I think that it's probably the latter. What I see in the future is, especially, the way I look at the market, it's data driven in a different way. So wherever you have data, you have the need for compute, you have a need for the network. It comes in a variety of ways. One is just around regulations, so if you have data you need to protect, you need on-prem computes towards networking. If you need a lot of insight from your data, you need to do a lot of number crunching or data crunching. ML, AI, for all of those workloads, you need local compute, you need local network. So, depending upon where the data is, you will see computer networking follow. So in that sense, yes, there will be the need for cloud-based access for all of our enterprises, cloud based applications. But the need for on-prem will never disappear. And that's why I think making the bet on multi-cloud, making the bet on hybrid, is a critical way forward. >> All right, so, Vijoy, one of the things we see at this show, especially, is that intersection between what's happening in the enterprise and what's happening in the developer community. We've watched closely the DevNet group inside of Cisco, and that rise of, it's not just in the DevNet group but Cisco going through a lot of transformation. Heard one of the keynotes in this building a year ago, is when you think of Cisco in like 2030, it shouldn't be Cisco, the networking company, it's Cisco's a software company. And there's the platitudes out there about softwares eating the world alive, but help us give it a little insight as to what that means. Networking of course is Cisco's DNA and how most of us today still think of Cisco, but what's that journey that Cisco is going through? >> Sure. And you touched upon a couple of points there, so let me just walk through a couple of them. First of all, the reference to DevNet, it's pretty evident that everything is moving towards a developer mindset. And the network is no different. So talking about the automation bits that I mentioned earlier even at Cisco the products have been built around even physical boxes, which is the bread and butter for a large majority of out customers. We are trying to move that towards a more developer-friendly paradigm. And instead of going through SNMP or CLI, we are moving towards a very programmatic API, model-driven networks, streaming telemetry. And to do all of those things, you need a developer-centric mindset. So whereas our products are enabling APIs to do those things, there is a need for a community to ingest that API set, and that's were DevNet comes in. So just to be able to train the people who are operating the networks or building on top of out networks, you need a community that is familiar with programmability and development and the software engine principles that go with it. So that's one aspect of the statement that you mentioned earlier and that's one place where Cisco is going. Just with the switches and routers. Another aspect is in 2030 where do you see Cisco evolving towards? And like everybody else we are also going through a transformation. We are becoming cloud-native internally. So it's not just that our products are becoming cloud-native in there nature, it's also what we offer is becoming cloud-native. So the products, the way they are constructed, the way the apps are being developed are becoming cloud-native. We want to be SaaS enabled, so the company is going through a transformation of enabling SaaS on a lot of our products. So transforming Cisco to enable that business model, is also something that you see happen over the course of the next few years. And so we are internally going through how do we build these things out of microservices? How do we scale out? How do we share common code? How do we share common services? How do we stand up a platform just like the Googles and the AWSs have done? And so that's a big push inside of Cisco, as well. >> What does that look like as you go through your own transformation and how does that inform how you meet your customers? >> I didn't catch the last part. >> How does that inform how you meet your customers? As you start to gain empathy for what they're going through too, by going through it yourself. >> That's right, I think, that's exactly right. If you look at what Cisco's trying to do, it's no different than our entire customer set. You can see a whole bunch of things happening, whether whether their companies are being acquired. So lets say, Duo is a great example that we just acquired in the security space. AB Dynamics is a great example. So there's a whole bunch of companies that you acquire that are already SaaS based that are already microservices based. Then there are products that we have had internally that are going through a transformation themselves. Our IT department is going through a transformation. The way we are consuming our own products, talking about DevNet, we are actually consuming them in a very programtic way. So we are no different than all of our customers out there, most of our customers out there, if you skip the top four or five hyper-scalers that we just talked about. So how we approach this problem resinates really, really well with our customer set. And so coming up with use cases and saying that this is how we've solved the problem, these are the products that we built and we consume ourselves so we dog food our own products. For example, the Kubernetes tag that we've had, CCP, we consume it internally. We run it as SaaS product internally. Actually there are a lot of other BUs within Cisco, that consume it as part of their own product offering. So enabling that gives us a lot of credibility when we go and talk to our customers, that this is how we've gone through the journey. And in fact, we want to talk a lot more about that journey in the coming few quarters, because that'll give us the credibility in the marketplace, as well. >> All right, so Vijoy, one of the hottest topics at this show, and has been for a while, is security. And we know there is a tight connection between security and a lot of time with networking there. On the keynote this morning, you talked a little bit about Network Service Match, which is now a sandbox project under the CNCF, explain a little bit how that's helping to attack some of these key issues. >> Sure. I think the NSM is just the first step. So the Network Service Match is basically doing a couple of things. One is it is simplifying networking, so that the consumption paradigm is similar to what you see on the developer L7 layer. So if you think Istio, and how Istio is changing the game in terms of how you consume Layer 7 services, think of bringing that down to the layer to layer three layer, as well. So the way a developer would discover services at the L7 layer is the same way, we would want developers to discover networking endpoints, or networking services, or security capabilities. That's number one. So the language in which you consume needs to be simplified, whereby it becomes simple for developer to consume. The second thing that I touched upon is we don't want developers to think about switches, routers, subnets, BCP, VXLAN, VLAN. >> And they don't! >> They don't, exactly. And so how do you get hybrid and multi-cloud connectivity when you leave a Kubernetes port. Within a port it is very nice and well constructed, and you don't think about those concepts. The moment you leave the port, all of those things come in. And IPs change, subnets change, routing comes into the picture, peering endpoints come into the picture. You don't want developers to think about it and they don't want to think about it, so NSM tries to hide all of that below a shim layer and gives you a simple discovery mechanism, from point A to point B regardless of how far you're going. So that's how the other abstraction that we are bringing in. The third bit, going back to your security question, today if I look at how VNFs are constructed, these are basically cardboard boxes, like I said. They are basically you took the sheet metal, that you are building, you wrap it up in a VM and you call it a virtualized network function. You could follow the same paradigm, wrap up everything, put it in a container, and call it a container network function. We don't want that to happen. So we want to end up in a world where you want specific targeted capabilities. So if a certain application all it needs is an IPSec Tunnel and nothing else, you should be able to provide just that capability, and just basic connectivity for that application. If another application needs a lot more than that, maybe it needs a WAF, maybe it needs something more beyond that, you should be able to provide those capabilities without bringing in the other things. So just dissecting the capabilities of the networking and security space and offering them as individual capabilities which are specific to the application is where we want to be. And that's the world we want to enable. >> Perfect, my last question for you is, when I started off my career as a grumpy Unix administrator, because there's no other kind of Unix administrator that isn't grumpy, I had to learn networking in order to be halfway effective at my job. Today I think you can do the same sort of operational role without having much awareness of networks, because very often that's handled for you, they're a lot more reliable these days, in most cases, too. So you have people who are hitting senior or architect-level roles that have never really touched networking at all. It's always been working behind the scenes until it doesn't. At which point there's not awareness there among those types of people. Those developers are viewing that as part of the plumbing, it always just works. You don't question whether the water's going to come out we turn the tap on, same issue with networking. Do you find that the lack of being first and foremost in people's mind, which is incidentally is a assessment to your success, that that is going to start working against you in some ways as some people stop thinking about networking as a primary thing they need to solve for? >> So, it's and interesting point, and I think if you think about, again, my background where I came from. So at Google, we used to have this thing, that since we control the application stack end to end, we could build the infrastructure the way the applications would want them to be built. So for example, you would go to YouTube or an ML application and say, what do you want infrastructure to be? And in a utopian world they would tell you, build me this. To your point what they told us, even within Google, is, give me infinite capacity at zero latency, at zero cost and then go away. That's what developers want. They don't want to think about it, till it breaks. >> Yes. >> And so number one, building something that will give you infinite capacity at zero latency, high availability and as little cost as possible, I think there is a role for networking for a long, long, long time to come. Number one, because there are architects and products to enable that. Number two, observability. Figuring out how to bump up availability as you go on, getting into zero ops and automation, getting into AI and making sure that these things operate and run on their own, and there is very little burden on the network engineer or operator. These are all problems that a company like Cisco can bring, or solve, in this world. And so you will see Cisco just move up the stack. So it's not that these things will disappear. But, yes, there will be parts that will be plumbing, but there will be parts that Cisco will move up the stack. Getting the observability, getting SLAs in the network figured out, I think there's where, those are the places were Cisco will add value. >> All right, so Vijoy, I'll ask you to close with how you opened your keynote. Help explain network Please Evolve. >> So this, actually yes, so I think wrapping up in terms of everything that I've just said, a few things that networking needs to do is move forward into the cloud-native world, where you are building things in the same way that applications are being built today. And so the consumption model, the architecture of the application in terms of microservices, the way you would operate these networks in terms of building very specific SRE teams, those are the ways the network should be built, as well. The other thing, which is near and dear to my heart, is the need to build in a zero ops matter. You cannot have network engineers and operators muck around with the network anymore. Because they're becoming bigger, larger, and more complicated than ever before. So we need to move towards a zero ops model, and that's were I think evolution of the network should be. >> Well, Vijoy, congratulations on the progress so far, and thank you so much for joining us. >> hank you, and it was very nice to be here. >> All right, for Corey Quinn, I'm Stu Miniman. Back with more of two days of wall-to-wall coverage here at KubeCon CloudNativeCon 2019 Barcelona, Spain. Thank you for watching theCUBE. (upbeat music)

>> Live from San Francisco it's theCUBE, covering Google Cloud Next 2018, brought to you by Google Cloud and its ecosystem partners. >> Hey welcome back everyone. This is theCUBE, live in San Francisco. Google Cloud Next '18. My co-host Jeff Frick and I are here with Suhail Dutta, VP of Cloud Services for Unity Technologies. Some of those popular game engines, developers of VR AR and mobile gaming, as well as game developers. A hot used case for Google Cloud. They love the speed. They love the features. We hearing that all, wait welcome to theCUBE, thanks for joining us. >> Thanks, thanks for having me. >> So I wish I was a kid again because the game experience now is so good and I'm kind of like a keyboard guy. So I'm not a good console player but now keyboard's back and now you got mobile games. I mean the games are amazing these days. >> They are, they are. They're amazing and they're amazing on every kind of platform. You could have mobile games, console games, PC games, input types, keyboards, controllers VR. It's stunning. >> I always say I've been observing the Internet. It used to be really the predictor of what's going to happen in computing and user experience really I think gaming leads a lot of it. Look at virtual currencies. Look at blockchain and crypto and virtual currencies in game for a long time. So it's a really leading indicator and certainly as you look at immersive experiences, gaming is not just gaming. It's potentially virtual reality, augmented reality around 3D is what you guys do. This is huge. >> Yeah. >> It's not just about gaming anymore. Talk about what you guys are doing. Take a minute to explain the company. Are you beyond gaming? What are some of the things you're working on. >> Yeah I think I said this at the keynote. One of the things we fundamentally believe is the world's better with more creators. So those creators for us traditionally have been in gaming but more and more we see that also happening in film. All kinds of media, animation, but also lots of industries like automotive and others. And so we more and more like to talk to ourselves as we're enabling, empowering creators to do what they love to do and we make their lives easier, and allow them to achieve what they wanted. >> It's the continuation of the democratization trend right because actually all the big hardware companies used to brag about how much time it took to render all the crazy scenes and all these beautiful big 70 millimeter movies. Everybody can't afford that horsepower, doesn't have the time, so with with engines like what you guys have you know you've been able to spread that developer ecosystem out, the creator ecosystem out dramatically to allow so much more points of view and people to contribute and to create all these cool new things. >> Yeah you know I think Diane actually said this on stage at the Unite event. Our founders may have coined democratized development and 15 years ago, we've always believed that to be true. We've been for the community every size of team for as long as we've been around, and it remains the first principle we use in our mission. We do solve our problems. We do enable our creators success but democratized development is core to everything we do, and we've been (mumbles). >> The younger generation is gravitating towards games. Obviously it's a gateway drug to software development if you think about it. Robotics is another one. You're seeing these maker culture kind of things really attracting developers at a whole another level. It's not computer science, software engineering degree, banging out raw machine language. This is like for fun. There's a whole new artistry going on. >> There is yeah. >> What is your view on this new trend around software artistry because there's engineering certainly involved. The engines are getting smarter. Distraction layers are becoming available. What's your take on that? >> Yeah I think the engineering side of it has always been about raising that level of abstraction so that people can focus on what they love to do. So if you're a game maker you probably got into making games because you love games and you love making them. You probably didn't get into it to make an engine. So that's always been very true for us, and we've gotten better at that. But some of the things we've learned along the way of course to your point are, the various kinds of artists that are actually just as or more critical through these kinds of creative endeavors, and we've actually been making great strides in not only helping artists of all kinds work themselves in Unity, or in other tools, but also then work seamlessly with engineers, which oftentimes ends up being a place where there is friction, but in an environment like Unity, you can't have a lot of separation right? We have a 3D environment. You put this on your computer, you work in it, you build your models, you write your scripts, you write all of that in one cohesive way, because otherwise games take way longer to build. They have all kinds of issues and communication. I think it's quite key for us. >> So I always love to watch the game threads on Reddit, EA and these guys, the corporate's taken over. You're seeing more younger artists coming in. You guys have to maintain your relevance to keep those developers happy. You got to continue to innovate. Gaming is a lot of pressure. >> Yes. >> How do you guys keep up? What are some of the things you're doing with tech? What do you bring into the market? How do you keep ratcheting up the capability so that they don't flock somewhere else or apparently so they can create better products. >> Right, I think probably the highest level principle there is leading on from democratized, but we focus a lot on our community of creators. Both in terms of the content, the samples, the learning, the tools, something Google does quite well actually. And that's been instrumental in empowering this community. That's very strong. I mean it is in many ways our greatest strength. We have a huge number of developers and artists and creators that work with Unity. So if you were to want to create something, and you were looking for answers, using our services or others, you can go out there. Now on the technology side, the way we look at it is in many ways we've looked at it as your engine team. So performance by default some of the things that we're doing to make really, really high performance, efficient computing, on all kinds of devices, letting you do more with them, but then also there's a responsible aspect which is if you think about improving the performance and power consumption on devices, is very important to us. And then an area where we're really putting in a lot of effort now is the cloud and with Google on connected games, which is why-- >> So let's talk about that because we're here and it's interesting the creator conversation because obviously Google owns YouTube, which has spawned a whole different kind of class of creators that are disrupting the media business. So you're here kind of what does Google give to you guys? Why are you partnering with them? What's kind of the story? >> Of course. So we talk about connected games right? So what we mean by that of course are games where players can connect to each other and or to the developers that create them. Oftentimes, we use the term multiplayer, which of course is a particular sub-genre of connected games. They run the gamut from a game that you might play on your phone and then you interact with other players through leaderboards and chat and things like that. So they're connected not necessarily real-time multiplayer and on the other side of the spectrum you might have a game where you run around and interact with each other in real time in a 3D environment or a massive multiplayer game where you stay in that world for many, many, many years and you act as a character. Because Unity has so many creators, the entire spectrum of those games, connected games are important to us, important to our users. For all those games, you need massive amounts of infrastructure. You need lots of infrastructure, you need performance items, like you need the best network and you need lots of services that help you again to the earlier point focus on making your game. This is an area that both Unity and Google care deeply about. If you take a small studio or even a large studio for that matter, that got in the business to create their game, they don't want to spend all of their time learning how to make an engine or set up a bunch of infrastructure. The area where we're focusing a lot now is that marriage between Google and Unity where you can because of our alliance, we can raise that level of abstract to your earlier point and let them build connected games in an easier way. >> Talk about the role of data because obviously you look at the data that's generated. I mean which could be user gesture data, I mean everything's tracked. >> Yeah. >> I mean that's a big data solution problem opportunity you guys have. >> Yeah and I think so one of the things we like to say of course is you know we're a platform. We enable our users to build and run successful games and our users being the developers and artists that data's theirs, and then they are able to then do really wonderful things with that data if they so choose. So you're right, for the games that have so many players online and all these actions, there is an amazing amount of data, but fundamentally in an anonymized way around what makes games more fun. And that's a hard problem to solve. It's why our creators have the hardest problem of it all is make something fun where data can play a huge role in that. >> How is the relation with Google Cloud and your engine with those developers? Do they get the magic of Google and you pass that through or is it built into your product that's abstracted away? >> Yeah it's a combination of things, so I think there's one side, which is us building services that run on top of Google Cloud so if for instance you need a matchmaker which is a very common piece of technology, but quite complicated piece of technology, for games is to match players into games quickly. We are working with Google, we're collaborating on an open source project, that we call Open Match that comes out later this summer, and then we're building a service on top of that that our users can just pick up and use. It runs on Google Cloud. At the same time, Google brings many other capabilities to bear, things like maps and other capabilities from GCP, that they can then bring to our users in a more direct way rather than building a product together, and then of course Unity actually now runs quite a few cloud services and we're going to migrate all of those to Google Cloud as well. So it's sort of three aspects of that. >> And what's your vision for Unity? If you look for and looking at what's coming on with Google, as to the future of your engine looking at the creator market, Hollywood. Just at Sundance I did a panel with Intel on the future of entertainment, and we talked about the new artists coming in. You have the social networks now reforming this game connector concept is pretty huge. >> Yeah. >> This is a new dynamic, so you got to build new services. What's your vision of how your going to build out these cloud services? Can you share your vision and thoughts on? >> Yeah we can yeah so I think the, within the space of connected games of course like I said there's many different categories of these games, but there are some fundamental building blocks that you can build that we can build together, Google and Unity can to empower all of these kinds of games. Matchmaking is a particular example, but at the end of the day, games that blur the lines between, they're running on a device, they're running on a PC, they're running on a console or they let players pick them up wherever they go, but also interact with each other right because as AR and VR and these virtual worlds come to fruition, more and more it's going to be about us interacting not just in the virtual world but also in the real world and able to do that and most of those things are predicated on this world that exists online, and it's all running on infrastructure. There's a lot of infrastructure that's required there, so we've got a really rich roadmap over the next many, many years to continue to invest in this area and help our users create these kinds of games because they are in the games world, the most influential kind, but more and more in other areas of our life they're also going to be the same technologies that are applied there. >> I just love to get your perspective. You've been in this space for a long time gaming but also 3D specifically. Now 3D is so still nascent. It's hard to do for most people. The experiences are still being developed, but it's come so long, so as you look at kind of where 3D is evolved, both to create it as well as to experience kind of what are your general thoughts of where we are on that path and what do you see kind of in the short term and near-term in terms of how that's really going to change the way we do things, whether it's work, gaming or experiencing other types of things? >> Sure I think that I'd like to go back to one of the things you said, where when you're playing games you have to stand up. We've come a long way. (all laughing) So we have come a long way. You look at some of the content of the games that are being produced, you even look at just the kinds of content and the interactive content that's being created in Unity, it's amazing if you look at how far we've come. I think to your point you're right. There is a long way to go, there's lots of it. I mean all our hardware capabilities just continue to get better, like the latest phones, the latest consoles. They're so powerful right we have these supercomputers in our pockets with amazing capabilities and consumers demand that kind of stuff, the latest level of graphics. I think all of that stuff continues. I think our CEO, John talked about in this sort of AR and VR, we're kind of going through this level of excitement and then we have the trough of disillusionment and all these kinds of things right. We've got some elements of that but there's a lot of great companies doing a lot of fantastic stuff, and I think that that's going to come to bear, and so I think Unity is there with them and we're really well positioned. >> The tell signs are there. You're seeing people using VR in areas that give them a unique thing that's so scarce in areas where that's pharmaceuticals, doctor, I see even heard Tom Brady uses a VR to look at defenses before he plays games, but this is an interesting question for you though, I want to get your thoughts. Do you have a unique position to see the data of what your game engine is doing? For the folks out there, the young kids who are in elementary school, high school that love games. That don't necessarily want to be computer science major. Maybe they don't even have a direction of any kind but want to start hacking away and start coding. What patterns do you see that would help someone get started and so they don't drop out or abandon it, get addicted if you will, what are some of the things you could share that you've seen successful getting someone involved in either coding games, getting involved in the community. What are some of those best practices or patterns that you've seen? >> Right I mean so I think there's probably a technical answer to that and then there's a non-technical one. I think your word community resonates with me a lot. So for anyone starting out I think there's a lot that an individual creator can accomplish but given the world we're in, we have these extremely rich communities that are helping each other, whether it's the open source community in a more general sense for web or servers, but even in machine learning if you hear the guy from Cal-vil talk, they were talking about machine learning community, and it was pretty amazing to hear him talk about that. For us it's the creator community and we have a really rich one and there's lots of people there that bring many skills to bear, which ends up being way more critical than things like very specific technology trends for this kind of thing, so I think-- >> Just mentoring and stuff going on in the creator community. People are helping each other big time. >> There's a huge amount. I mean this notion of developers and creators helping each other, sometimes not for any money, is a trend being seen everywhere, not just-- >> So advice is jump into a community, get a check in... >> I think it's probably cliched a little bit, if you can find a project or a set of projects or a type of thing that you really enjoy doing, you'd be surprised at what skills you can bring to bear and everyone needs help. >> So download the emulator, get some code in your hands, jump into a community-- >> Yeah Unity is free. Download it. It's easy to get started and then work with the community. I think almost always it's find the project that you really care about and start helping. >> Final question for you to wrap up the segment. For the people that are not inside the ropes in the industry that looking at Google, see Google Cloud, wow a lot of buzz on Google Cloud, knowing what we knew two years ago, oh gee the original app engine kind of concept was Google Cloud. Now so much more. What would you say to the people watching now how has Google Cloud changed? What's different? What are they doing right and where they need to improve? >> So even before Unity I've been a user of aspects of Google Cloud and App Engine. And I think they have come an amazing way in terms of the way they're approaching every other aspect that isn't just the technology aspect. I think the tech it's Google. They've always been impeccable. >> It's great tech. Yeah great tech, yeah. >> Their network is incredible. Their server is incredible. So they've always been extremely good at that, but the things that are so much better the level of support, they're working with us very closely all across their organization. We are enjoying working with them a lot and they're really trying to help us be successful much like we help our creators, so that's resonating with us a lot, and we found that to be great and I think that you know everything I see makes us quite happy that that we are partners with them. >> And they're bringing some goodies to the party. They've bred open source contributions, pretty phenomenal. I mean Kubernetes I mean that's just game-changing right there. You got BigQuery and they got some, they're contributing some jewels. >> They have some amazing tech that can be brought to bear on a lot of different things right? So we're are a heavy Kubernetes user and have been for a while. Even before we were Google partners, so I think this is great things that they announced with GKE, this conference really mattered to us, GKE on prem, and then they're also a very partner driven company, and I think they recognize our knowledge and expertise in games and I think that that's an area where their expertise in cloud and our expertise in games can be very very great. >> I think it's a great opportunity for Google to make the market on the partnership ecosystem side. They have a lot they could bring to the table. They can make people successful and people can make money and deliver great products. That's a winning formula. >> Yeah exactly. >> - So let's see. Congratulations on your success. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for coming on theCUBE. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for sharing the insight into Unity Technologies. It's theCUBE bringing you all the action here out in the open with Google Cloud. More coverage, stay with us. We are at day three of three days of live coverage. I'm John Furrier with Jeff Frick. Stay with us we'll be right back. (electronic music)

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

(rhythmic music) >> From Phoenix, Arizona, The Cube. At Catalyst Conference, here's your host, Jeff Frick. (rhythmic music) >> Hey, Jeff Frick here with The Cube. We are in Phoenix, Arizona at the Girls Who Code Catalyst Conference It's a great show, about 400 people; they're fourth year. It's going back to the Bay Area next year, so I wanted to come down, talk to some of the key notes, some of the speakers. And really give you a taste if you weren't able to make the trip to Phoenix this year of what's going on. So we're really excited to be joined by our next guest, Fran Maier, she co-founded Match, she co-founded TRUSTe. Serial entrepreneur, the start-up veteran. Fran, welcome. >> Thank you so much Jeff, It's great to be here. >> Absolutely. So you were giving a presentation on really what it is to be a woman entrepreneur. >> Yes, so I've been a internet entrepreneur for now more than twenty years going back to when we started Match.com. And I joined that in late 1994. We really launched around 1995, about 21 years ago, this month, April of 1995. >> Time flies >> And many of the things that were still very much, I think, in the early years of the impact of the internet and mobile and cloud and connectivity on our lives, but Match.com has proven to be what they call a unicorn, a very successful new business model, but more than that many, many people have found their life partner or at least a few good dates on Match.com. So I am always very happy about that. >> And you're way ahead of the curve. Now, I think, I don't know, I've been married for over twenty years, but I think a lot of people that's kind of the first way >> Yeah. to meet people. >> Not the second way. Where when you guys first made Match.com, that was a pretty novel idea. >> Well, well now they call dating where like we used to do it, where you met people at parties and bars, now that's called dating in the wild. >> In the wild (laughing) >> So the more natural thing is using Match.com. But from an entrepreneurial support, I was one of the only women who was involved in starting company in the mid-1990's, still women are less than 10% of TechFounders or venture-backed founders. Women raise a lot less money. And so one of my passions and why I am here at Girls in Tech is to try and impart some of the wisdom gleamed over twenty plus years. >> So what are some of the ways that you see that barrier starting to break down? Is it just, you just got to keep banging on it and slowly and slowly it will move and >> (murmers) >> So I think there's been some difference, I think it's a lot easier to be an entrepreneur of any kind now >> Well that's true. >> than it was twenty years ago. I mean, now having meals delivered to you and the sort of support like Girls in Tech, there was very little of that guidance or certainly there were very few role models, >> Right. >> Twenty years ago. So that certainly has changed. I think another big change, and this is probably over the last two or three years, is that now women feel they can speak out loud about some of the issues. And that there is some, men are willing to listen, >> Right >> Right >> at least some are. >> We still see things like TechCrunch a couple of years ago had a team present a new mobile app called Titstare. We still hear about things like that. We still, there was a survey called The Elephant in Silicon Valley that itemized stories and stats about women and sexual abuse, other kinds of harassment, exclusion, not being invited to sit at the table. So a lot of that stuff is still going on. But I feel like we can call it out a little bit easier. >> Right, right. And it's ... >> Without retribution potentially. >> Is there, is there, kind of a tipping point event, action, that you see potentially as to kind of accelerating ... accelerating it? >> Well I think the media, since lead-in has really kind of picked up on this and discovering it. And the Ellen Pao trial, last year; I spoke a little bit about that, where she brought suit to Kleiner Perkins. She lost the suit, but it started the dialogue. >> Right. >> So I think a lot of this is, is happening and my approach is to try and ... I see, I advise so many start ups. And I see business plans. And almost invariably the business plans from women aren't big enough. They don't say "Hey we're going to be a hundred million dollar company in five years. And we need to raise five million dollars to get there." >> Right. >> Women play it more safe, and, I don't think that, I'm trying to encourage them to take more risk, to figure out how to do it, to play to win. >> Right. Play big to win, right? Playing big. >> Play big to win, yes, swing big. >> It's interesting, on the Lean In, you know Sheryl Sandberg's, I don't know if ground breaking is the right word, but certainly ground breaking. >> Surely, yeah. >> But the Golden State Warriors right now, probably the most popular professional sports team in the country, at the zenith of their success, they have a Lean In commercial. I don't know if you've seen it in the Bay Area, >> I havent seen it! >> where all of the players talk about leaning in. And it just so happens that Steph Curry, their number one superstar, >> Sure. is very close to his wife. She has a cooking show. They're very family orientated. Green ... >> But I thought you were going to ... >> Draymond Green has his mom, who he just constantly just gushes about his mom. And so they, as a male sports team, have a whole commercial they run quite frequently on specifically Lean In. >> Well I, I appreciate that. I also, though, read the article that, that team is owned by bunch of venture capitalists. They all get together and play basketball and it reminded me of a little bit of another place where women have been excluded. And so I was talking to a venture capital friend of mine saying "Buy into the Warriors, or let's buy into a women's soccer team." And you know sports being what they are, it's almost a different thing, but the news about the women's soccer players being paid much less than the men, even though they generate more income. It's just another example, profession by profession where women are paid less or have less opportunity to advance. >> But to your point, I think people understand it, it's not right, but I think everyone pretty much knows that women aren't paid the same as men. But that was interesting about the soccer story, to your point is it was brought up. >> Yeah we could talk about it. >> It wasn't a retribution, right? It's like hey, you know, we're not getting paid and they listed the numbers in Sports Illustrated. They were dramatically different. And, in fact, you know, one of the knocks in the WNBA is that you can't make a living as a player in the WNBA. You just can't. They pay them like, I don't know >> So they should have been. Yeah. >> $60,000. Whatever it is. You know they have to go play in other places, foreign countries to make enough money to live. So I do think its interesting, your point that, you know, the exposure of the problem, the kind of acceptance that we need to do something about it, does seem to be in a much better place than it used to be. >> The other thing that I think that these things illustrate is one of the messages I try and get across, is women tend to settle for too little. You know, they don't necessarily negotiate for themselves. Out of college they don't do as well. They, I've talked to many women who they felt that when they were raising capital, or negotiating deals, that the men on the other side of the table, mostly, not always of course, it sort of said, "Hey this is great, you should be happy to get this. How many women get this?" And that's not really the issue. The issue should be, you should be getting what you deserve. I learned that the hard way, we talked about it a little bit, awhile ago, where Match.com was sold in 1998 for less than $10,000,000. And I was the general manager, I had grown it, we were number one, we were cash flow positive, although probably shouldn't have been. And I walked away with a hundred thousand dollars. And, at the time, sure that's a lot of money, but nobody seemed to encourage me that I probably could have raised the money and led the investment and had an equity round. A year later Match.com was sold from Send It to ISC for $70,000,000. And of course I didn't get anything. >> Yeah. >> So that's my big lesson. The good news is, ten years later, I took TRUSTe, which was a nonprofit, switched it to a for-profit, I raised the capital, and got my ownership in equity position. But tough lesson. >> Yeah, expensive one. >> Yeah. >> But those are the ones you learn though. (laughter) >> I could go through a few of those too. So Fran, we're running low on time. I wanted to give you the last word and get your perspective on, kind of, mentorship and sponsorship. We hear those words tossed around a lot. And that there's a significant difference between just being a mentor and actually being a sponsor, taking an active role in someone else's career. Pushing them to maybe uncomfortable places. Giving them, you know, kind of, the oomph, if you will, that, "Yes you can do this, you do belong." What are you seeing kind of the development of that as people try to help more women ascend, kind of up the line? >> Well, you know, I tend to think of mentorship as something that happens within a company and sponsorship can happen within a company, but advising, sponsoring, promoting, championing, are things that we certainly need to do within the entrepreneurial community of women. So, mentoring is, I see that as a little bit more passive, and I don't know why. But, it's important to have people to look up to and for you, role models are really important. But I think the active thing of championing or sponsoring or even being a more active coach or advisor, is a little bit more hands-on and willing to challenge, you know, you're not just a role model, you're really saying, "Tell me what you're dealing with, and let me see how I can help." I just got off a phone call from one of my advisees, she just raised the money, great news, you know, now she's freaking out about how to spend it. (laughing) >> Maybe with your next problem. >> Yeah. (laughter) >> Been there, done that. >> Right, right. >> You know. >> Well, it's good, good for helpin' them out, and Fran, thanks for taking a few minutes. >> Sure. Lot of fun. >> Absolutely. Track Fran down if you're a budding entrepreneur. She's been there, she's got the scars and the wounds from the early days, and learned from it on the success with TRUSTe. >> Thank you. >> And, some great videos on the web, by the way. I was watching them, the whole story on the Match thing was pretty funny. You'll enjoy it, so take the time ... >> There's one of them where I start to cry, I hate that, but what can you do? >> I didn't get to the crying part, but that's okay. >> Yeah, yeah, that's all right. >> That's what happens in Jerry McGuire all the time. All right, well thanks a lot Fran. >> Thanks so much. >> I'm Jeff Frick, you are watching The Cube. We are in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Girls in Tech Catalyst Conference. (rhythmic music)