>> Narrator: TheCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies. Creating technologies that drive human progress. (light airy music) >> Hi, everybody, welcome back to the Fira in Barcelona. My name is Dave Vellante. I'm here with my co-host Dave Nicholson. Lisa Martin is in the house. John Furrier is pounding the news from our Palo Alto studio. We are super excited to be talking about cloud at the edge, what that means. Charles Tsai is here. He's the Senior Director of product management at Dell Technologies and Peter Fetterolf is the Chief Technology Officer at ACG Business Analytics, a firm that goes deep into the TCO and the telco space, among other things. Gents, welcome to theCUBE. Thanks for coming on. Thank you. >> Good to be here. >> Yeah, good to be here. >> So I've been in search all week of the elusive next wave of monetization for the telcos. We know they make great money on connectivity, they're really good at that. But they're all talking about how they can't let this happen again. Meaning we can't let the over the top vendors yet again, basically steal our cookies. So we're going to not mess it up this time. We're going to win in the monetization. Charles, where are those monetization opportunities? Obviously at the edge, the telco cloud at the edge. What is that all about and where's the money? >> Well, Dave, I think from a Dell's perspective, what we want to be able to enable operators is a solution that enable them to roll out services much quicker, right? We know there's a lot of innovation around IoT, MEG and so on and so forth, but they continue to rely on traditional technology and way of operations is going to take them years to enable new services. So what Dell is doing is now, creating the entire vertical stack from the hardware through CAST and automation that enable them, not only to push out services very quickly, but operating them using cloud principles. >> So it's when you say the entire vertical stack, it's the integrated hardware components with like, for example, Red Hat on top- >> Right. >> Or a Wind River? >> That's correct. >> Okay, and then open API, so the developers can create workloads, I presume data companies. We just had a data conversation 'cause that was part of the original stack- >> That's correct. >> So through an open ecosystem, you can actually sort of recreate that value, correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> So one thing Dell is doing, is we are offering an infrastructure block where we are taking over the overhead of certifying every release coming from the Red Hat or the Wind River of the world, right? We want telcos to spend their resources on what is going to generate them revenue. Not the overhead of creating this cloud stack. >> Dave, I remember when we went through this in the enterprise and you had companies like, you know, IBM with the AS400 and the mainframe saying it's easier to manage, which it was, but it's still, you know, it was subsumed by the open systems trend. >> Yeah, yeah. And I think that's an important thing to probe on, is this idea of what is, what exactly does it mean to be cloud at the edge in the telecom space? Because it's a much used term. >> Yeah. >> When we talk about cloud and edge, in sort of generalized IT, but what specifically does it mean? >> Yeah, so when we talk about telco cloud, first of all it's kind of different from what you're thinking about public cloud today. And there's a couple differences. One, if you look at the big hyperscaler public cloud today, they tend to be centralized in huge data centers. Okay, telco cloud, there are big data centers, but then there's also regional data centers. There are edge data centers, which are your typical like access central offices that have turned data centers, and then now even cell sites are becoming mini data centers. So it's distributed. I mean like you could have like, even in a country like say Germany, you'd have 30,000 soul sites, each one of them being a data center. So it's a very different model. Now the other thing I want to go back to the question of monetization, okay? So how do you do monetization? The only way to do that, is to be able to offer new services, like Charles said. How do you offer new services? You have to have an open ecosystem that's going to be very, very flexible. And if we look at where telcos are coming from today, they tend to be very inflexible 'cause they're all kind of single vendor solutions. And even as we've moved to virtualization, you know, if you look at packet core for instance, a lot of them are these vertical stacks of say a Nokia or Ericson or Huawei where you know, you can't really put any other vendors or any other solutions into that. So basically the idea is this kind of horizontal architecture, right? Where now across, not just my central data centers, but across my edge data centers, which would be traditionally my access COs, as well as my cell sites. I have an open environment. And we're kind of starting with, you know, packet core obviously with, and UPFs being distributed, but now open ran or virtual ran, where I can have CUs and DUs and I can split CUs, they could be at the soul site, they could be in edge data centers. But then moving forward, we're going to have like MEG, which are, you know, which are new kinds of services, you know, could be, you know, remote cars it could be gaming, it could be the Metaverse. And these are going to be a multi-vendor environment. So one of the things you need to do is you need to have you know, this cloud layer, and that's what Charles was talking about with the infrastructure blocks is helping the service providers do that, but they still own their infrastructure. >> Yeah, so it's still not clear to me how the service providers win that game but we can maybe come back to that because I want to dig into TCO a little bit. >> Sure. >> Because I have a lot of friends at Dell. I don't have a lot of friends at HPE. I've always been critical when they take an X86 server put a name on it that implies edge and they throw it over the fence to the edge, that's not going to work, okay? We're now seeing, you know we were just at the Dell booth yesterday, you did the booth crawl, which was awesome. Purpose-built servers for this environment. >> Charles: That's right. >> So there's two factors here that I want to explore in TCO. One is, how those next gen servers compare to the previous gen, especially in terms of power consumption but other factors and then how these sort of open ran, open ecosystem stacks compared to proprietary stacks. Peter, can you help us understand those? >> Yeah, sure. And Charles can comment on this as well. But I mean there, there's a couple areas. One is just moving the next generation. So especially on the Intel side, moving from Ice Lake to the Sapphire Rapids is a big deal, especially when it comes to the DU. And you know, with the radios, right? There's the radio unit, the RU, and then there's the DU the distributed unit, and the CU. The DU is really like part of the radio, but it's virtualized. When we moved from Ice lake to Sapphire Rapids, which is third generation intel to fourth generation intel, we're literally almost doubling the performance in the DU. And that's really important 'cause it means like almost half the number of servers and we're talking like 30, 40, 50,000 servers in some cases. So, you know, being able to divide that by two, that's really big, right? In terms of not only the the cost but all the TCO and the OpEx. Now another area that's really important, when I was talking moving from these vertical silos to the horizontal, the issue with the vertical silos is, you can't place any other workloads into those silos. So it's kind of inefficient, right? Whereas when we have the horizontal architecture, now you can place workloads wherever you want, which basically also means less servers but also more flexibility, more service agility. And then, you know, I think Charles can comment more, specifically on the XR8000, some things Dell's doing, 'cause it's really exciting relative to- >> Sure. >> What's happening in there. >> So, you know, when we start looking at putting compute at the edge, right? We recognize the first thing we have to do is understand the environment we are going into. So we spend with a lot of time with telcos going to the south side, going to the edge data center, looking at operation, how do the engineer today deal with maintenance replacement at those locations? Then based on understanding the operation constraints at those sites, we create innovation and take a traditional server, remodel it to make sure that we minimize the disruption to the operations, right? Just because we are helping them going from appliances to open compute, we do not want to disrupt what is have been a very efficient operation on the remote sites. So we created a lot of new ideas and develop them on general compute, where we believe we can save a lot of headache and disruptions and still provide the same level of availability, resiliency, and redundancy on an open compute platform. >> So when we talk about open, we don't mean generic? Fair? See what I mean? >> Open is more from the software workload perspective, right? A Dell server can run any type of workload that customer intend. >> But it's engineered for this? >> Environment. >> Environment. >> That's correct. >> And so what are some of the environmental issues that are dealt with in the telecom space that are different than the average data center? >> The most basic one, is in most of the traditional cell tower, they are deployed within cabinets instead of racks. So they are depth constraints that you just have no access to the rear of the chassis. So that means on a server, is everything you need to access, need to be in the front, nothing should be in the back. Then you need to consider how labor union come into play, right? There's a lot of constraint on who can go to a cell tower and touch power, who can go there and touch compute, right? So we minimize all that disruption through a modular design and make it very efficient. >> So when we took a look at XR8000, literally right here, sitting on the desk. >> Uh-huh. >> Took it apart, don't panic, just pulled out some sleds and things. >> Right, right. >> One of the interesting demonstrations was how it compared to the size of a shoe. Now apparently you hired someone at Dell specifically because they wear a size 14 shoe, (Charles laughs) so it was even more dramatic. >> That's right. >> But when you see it, and I would suggest that viewers go back and take a look at that segment, specifically on the hardware. You can see exactly what you just referenced. This idea that everything is accessible from the front. Yeah. >> So I want to dig in a couple things. So I want to push back a little bit on what you were saying about the horizontal 'cause there's the benefit, if you've got the horizontal infrastructure, you can run a lot more workloads. But I compare it to the enterprise 'cause I, that was the argument, I've made that argument with converged infrastructure versus say an Oracle vertical stack, but it turned out that actually Oracle ran Oracle better, okay? Is there an analog in telco or is this new open architecture going to be able to not only service the wide range of emerging apps but also be as resilient as the proprietary infrastructure? >> Yeah and you know, before I answer that, I also want to say that we've been writing a number of white papers. So we have actually three white papers we've just done with Dell looking at infrastructure blocks and looking at vertical versus horizontal and also looking at moving from the previous generation hardware to the next generation hardware. So all those details, you can find the white papers, and you can find them either in the Dell website or at the ACG research website >> ACGresearch.com? >> ACG research. Yeah, if you just search ACG research, you'll find- >> Yeah. >> Lots of white papers on TCO. So you know, what I want to say, relative to the vertical versus horizontal. Yeah, obviously in the vertical side, some of those things will run well, I mean it won't have issues. However, that being said, as we move to cloud native, you know, it's very high performance, okay? In terms of the stack, whether it be a Red Hat or a VMware or other cloud layers, that's really become much more mature. It now it's all CNF base, which is really containerized, very high performance. And so I don't think really performance is an issue. However, my feeling is that, if you want to offer new services and generate new revenue, you're not going to do it in vertical stacks, period. You're going to be able to do a packet core, you'll be able to do a ran over here. But now what if I want to offer a gaming service? What if I want to do metaverse? What if I want to do, you have to have an environment that's a multi-vendor environment that supports an ecosystem. Even in the RAN, when we look at the RIC, and the xApps and the rApps, these are multi-vendor environments that's going to create a lot of flexibility and you can't do that if you're restricted to, I can only have one vendor running on this hardware. >> Yeah, we're seeing these vendors work together and create RICs. That's obviously a key point, but what I'm hearing is that there may be trade offs, but the incremental value is going to overwhelm that. Second question I have, Peter is, TCO, I've been hearing a lot about 30%, you know, where's that 30% come from? Is it Op, is it from an OpEx standpoint? Is it labor, is it power? Is it, you mentioned, you know, cutting the number of servers in half. If I can unpack the granularity of that TCO, where's the benefit coming from? >> Yeah, the answer is yes. (Peter and Charles laugh) >> Okay, we'll do. >> Yeah, so- >> One side that, in terms of, where is the big bang for the bucks? >> So I mean, so you really need to look at the white paper to see details, but definitely power, definitely labor, definitely reducing the number of servers, you know, reducing the CapEx. The other thing is, is as you move to this really next generation horizontal telco cloud, there's the whole automation and orchestration, that is a key component as well. And it's enabled by what Dell is doing. It's enabled by the, because the thing is you're not going to have end-to-end automation if you have all this legacy stuff there or if you have these vertical stacks where you can't integrate. I mean you can automate that part and then you have separate automation here, you separate. you need to have integrated automation and orchestration across the whole thing. >> One other point I would add also, right, on the hardware perspective, right? With the customized hardware, what we allow operator to do is, take out the existing appliance and push a edge optimized server without reworking the entire infrastructure. There is a significant saving where you don't have to rethink about what is my power infrastructure, right? What is my security infrastructure? The server is designed to leverage the existing, what is already there. >> How should telco, Charles, plan for this transformation? Are there specific best practices that you would recommend in terms of the operational model? >> Great question. I think first thing is do an inventory of what you have. Understand what your constraints are and then come to Dell, we will love to consult with you, based on our experience on the best practices. We know how to minimize additional changes. We know how to help your support engineer, understand how to shift appliance based operation to a cloud-based operation. >> Is that a service you offer? Is that a pre-sales freebie? What is maybe both? >> It's both. >> Yeah. >> It's both. >> Yeah. >> Guys- >> Just really quickly. >> We're going to wrap. >> The, yeah. Dave loves the TCO discussion. I'm always thinking in terms of, well how do you measure TCO when you're comparing something where you can't do something to an environment where you're going to be able to do something new? And I know that that's always the challenge in any kind of emerging market where things are changing, any? >> Well, I mean we also look at, not only TCO, but we look at overall business case. So there's basically service at GLD and revenue and then there's faster time to revenues. Well, and actually ACG, we actually have a platform called the BAE or Business Analytics Engine that's a very sophisticated simulation cloud-based platform, where we can actually look at revenue month by month. And we look at what's the impact of accelerating revenue by three months. By four months. >> So you're looking into- >> By six months- >> So you're forward looking. You're just not consistently- >> So we're not just looking at TCO, we're looking at the overall business case benefit. >> Yeah, exactly right. There's the TCO, which is the hard dollars. >> Right. >> CFO wants to see that, he or she needs to see that. But you got to, you can convince that individual, that there's a business case around it. >> Peter: Yeah. >> And then you're going to sign up for that number. >> Peter: Yeah. >> And they're going to be held to it. That's the story the world wants. >> At the end of the day, telcos have to be offered new services 'cause look at all the money that's been spent. >> Dave: Yeah, that's right. >> On investment on 5G and everything else. >> 0.5 trillion over the next seven years. All right, guys, we got to go. Sorry to cut you off. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> But we're wall to wall here. All right, thanks so much for coming on. >> Dave: Fantastic. >> All right, Dave Vellante, for Dave Nicholson. Lisa Martin's in the house. John Furrier in Palo Alto Studios. Keep it right there. MWC 23 live from the Fira in Barcelona. (light airy music)

(soft corporate jingle) >> Announcer: theCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies. Creating technologies that drive human progress. (upbeat jingle intro) >> Welcome back to Barcelona. We're here live at the Fira. (laughs) Just amazing day two of MWC23. It's packed today. It was packed yesterday. It's even more packed today. All the news is flowing. Check out siliconangle.com. John Furrier is in the studio in Palo Alto breaking all the news. And, we are here live. Really excited to have Udayan Mukherjee who's the Senior Fellow and Chief Architect of wireless product at Network and Edge for Intel. And, Manish Singh is back. He's the CTO of Telecom Systems Business at Dell Jets. Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you >> We're going to talk about greening the network. I wonder, Udayan, if you could just set up why that's so important. I mean, it's obvious that it's an important thing, great for the environment, but why is it extra important in Telco? >> Yeah, thank you. Actually, I'll tell you, this morning I had a discussion with an operator. The first thing he said, that the electricity consumption is more expensive nowadays that total real estate that he's spending money on. So, it's like that is the number one thing that if you can change that, bring that power consumption down. And, if you talk about sustainability, look what is happening in Europe, what's happening in all the electricity areas. That's the critical element that we need to address. Whether we are defining chip, platforms, storage systems, that's the number one mantra right now. You know, reduce the power. Electricity consumption, because it's a sustainable planet that we are living in. >> So, you got CapEx and OpEx. We're talking about the big piece of OpEx is now power consumption? >> Power Consumption >> That's the point. Okay, so in my experience, servers are the big culprit for power consumption, which is powered by core semiconductors and microprocessors. So, what's the strategy to reduce the power consumption? You're probably not going to reduce the bill overall. You maybe just can keep pace, but from a technical standpoint, how do you attack that? >> Yeah, there are multiple defined ways of adding. Obviously the process technology, that micro (indistinct) itself is evolving to make it more low-power systems. But, even within the silicon, the server that we develop, if you look in a CPU, there is a lot of power states. So, if you have a 32 code platform, as an example, every code you can vary the frequency and the C-states, power states. So, if you look into any traffic, whether it's a radio access network, packet code. At any given time the load is not peak. So, your power consumption, actual what we are drawing from the wall, it also needs to vary with that. So, that's how if you look into this there's a huge savings. If you go to Intel booth or Ericson booth or anyone, you will see right now every possible, the packet code, radio access network, everything network. They're talking about our energy consumption, how they're lowering this. These states, as we call it power states, C-state P-state they've built in intel chip for a long time. The cloud providers are taking advantage of it. But Telcos, with even two generation before they used to actually switch it off in the bios. I say no, we need peak. Now, that thing is changing. Now, it's all like, how do I take advantage of the built in technologies? >> I remember the enterprise virtualization, Manish, was a big play. I remember PG&E used to give rebates to customers that would install virtualized software, VMware. >> And SSDs. >> Yeah. And SSDs, you know, yes. Because, the spinning disc was, but, nowhere near with a server consumption. So, how virtualized is the telco network? And then, what I'm saying is there other things, other knobs, you can of course turn. So, what's your perspective on this as a server player? >> Yeah, absolutely. Let me just back up a little bit and start at the big picture to share what Udayan said. Here, day two, every conversation I've had yesterday and today morning with every operator, every CTO, they're coming in and first topic they're talking about is energy. And, the reason is, A, it's the right thing to do, sustainability, but, it's also becoming a P&L issue. And, the reason it's becoming a P&L issue is because we are in this energy inflationary environment where the energy costs are constantly going up. So, it's becoming really important for the service providers to really drive more efficiency onto their networks, onto their infrastructure. Number one. Two, then to your question on what all knobs need to be turned on, and what are the knobs? So, Udayan talked about within the intel, silicon, the C-states, P-states and all these capabilities that are being brought up, absolutely important. But again, if we take a macro view of it. First of all, there are opportunities to do infrastructure audit. What's on, why is it on, does it need to be on right now? Number two, there are opportunities to do infrastructure upgrade. And, what I mean by that is as you go from previous generation servers to next generation servers, better cooling, better performance. And through all of that you start to gain power usage efficiency inside a data center. And, you take that out more into the networks you start to achieve same outcomes on the network site. Think about from a cooling perspective, air cooling but for that matter, even liquid cooling, especially inside the data centers. All opportunities around PUE, because PUE, power usage efficiency and improvement on PUE is an opportunity. But, I'll take it even further. Workloads that are coming onto it, core, RAN, these workloads based on the dynamic traffic. Look, if you look at the traffic inside a network, it's not constant, it's varied. As the traffic patterns change, can you reduce the amount of infrastructure you're using? I.e. reduce the amount of power that you're using and when the traffic loads are going up. So, the workloads themselves need to become more smarter about that. And last, but not the least. From an orchestration layer if you think about it, where you are placing these workloads, and depending on what's available, you can start to again, drive better energy outcomes. And, not to forget acceleration. Where you need acceleration, can you have the right hardware infrastructures delivering the right kind of accelerations to again, improve those energy efficiency outcomes. So, it's a complex problem. But, there are a lot of levers, lot of tools that are in place that the service providers, the technology builders like us, are building the infrastructure, and then the workload providers all come together to really solve this problem. >> Yeah, Udayan, Manish mentioned this idea of moving from one generation to a new generation and gaining benefits. Out there on the street, if you will. Most of the time it's an N plus 2 migration. It's not just moving from last generation to this next generation, but it's really a generation ago. So, those significant changes in the dynamics around power density and cooling are meaningful? You talk about where performance should be? We start talking about the edge. It's hard to have a full-blown raised data center floor edge everywhere. Do these advances fundamentally change the kinds of things that you can do at the base of a tower? >> Yeah, absolutely. Manish talked about that, the dynamic nature of the workload. So, we are using a lot of this AIML to actually predict. Like for example, your multiple force in a systems. So, why is the 32 core as a system, why is all running? So, your traffic profile in the night times. So, you are in the office areas, in the night has gone home and nowadays everybody's working from remote anyway. So, why is this thing a full blown, spending the TDP, the total power and extreme powers. You bring it down, different power states, C-states. We talked about it. Deeper C-states or P-states, you bring the frequency down. So, lot of those automation, even at the base of the tower. Lot of our deployment right now, we are doing a whole bunch of massive MIMO deployment. Virtual RAN in Verizon network. All actually cell-site deployment. Those eight centers are very close to the cell-site. And, they're doing aggressive power management. So, you don't have to go to a huge data centers, even there's a small rack of systems, four to five, 10 systems, you can do aggressive power management. And, you built it up that way. >> Okay. >> If I may just build on what Udayan said. I mean if you look at the radio access network, right? And, let's start at the bottom of the tower itself. The infrastructure that's going in there, especially with Open RAN, if you think about it, there are opportunities now to do a centralized RAN where you could do more BBU pooling. And, with that, not only on a given tower but across a given given coverage area, depending on what the traffics are, you can again get the infrastructure to become more efficient in terms of what traffic, what needs are, and really start to benefit. The pooling gains which is obviously going to give you benefit on the CapEx side, but from an energy standpoint going to give you benefits on the OpEx side of things. So that's important. The second thing I will say is we cannot forget, especially on the radio access side of things, that it's not just the bottom of the tower what's happening there. What's happening on the top of the tower especially with the radio, that's super important. And, that goes into how do you drive better PA efficiency, how do you drive better DPD in there? This is where again, applying AI machine learning there is a significant amount of opportunity there to improve the PA performance itself. But then, not only that, looking at traffic patterns. Can you do sleep modes, micro sleep modes to deep sleep modes. Turning down the cells itself, depending on the traffic patterns. So, these are all areas that are now becoming more and more important. And, clearly with our ecosystem of partners we are continuing to work on these. >> So we hear from the operators, it's an OpEx issue. It's hitting the P&L. They're in search of PUE of one. And, they've historically been wasteful, they go full throttle. And now, you're saying with intelligence you can optimize that consumption. So, where does the intelligence live? Is it in the rig. Where is it all throughout the network? Is it in the silicon? Maybe you could paint a picture as to where those smarts exist. >> I can start. It's across the stack. It starts, we talked about the C-states, P-states. If you want to take advantage of that, that intelligence is in the workload, which has to understand when can I really start to clock things down or turn off the cores. If you really look at it from a traffic pattern perspective you start to really look at a rig level where you can have power. And, we are working with the ecosystem partners who are looking at applying machine learning on that to see what can we really start to turn on, turn off, throttle things down, depending on what the, so yes, it's across the stack. And lastly, again, I'll go back to cannot forget orchestration, where you again have the ability to move some of these workloads and look at where your workload placements are happening depending on what infrastructure is and what the traffic needs are at that point in time. So it's, again, there's no silver bullet. It has to be looked across the stack. >> And, this is where actually if I may, last two years a sea change has happened. People used to say, okay there are C-states and P-states, there's silicon every code. OS operating system has a governor built in. We rely on that. So, that used to be the way. Now that applications are getting smarter, if you look at a radio access network or the packet core on the control plane signaling application, they're more aware of the what is the underlying silicon power state sleep states are available. So, every time they find some of these areas there's no enough traffic there, they immediately goes to a transition. So, the workload has become more intelligent. The rig application we talked about. Every possible rig application right now are apps on xApps. Most of them are on energy efficiency. How are they using it? So, I think lot more even the last two years. >> Can I just say one more thing there right? >> Yeah. >> We cannot forget the infrastructure as well, right? I mean, that's the most important thing. That's where the energy is really getting drawn in. And, constant improvement on the infrastructure. And, I'll give you some data points, right? If you really look at the power at servers, right? From 2013 to 2023, like a decade. 85% energy intensity improvement, right? So, these gains are coming from performance with better cooling, better technology applications. So, that's super critical, that's important. And, also to just give you another data point. Apart from the infrastructure what cache layers we are running and how much CPU and compute requirements are there, that's also important. So, looking at it from a cache perspective are we optimizing the required infrastructure blocks for radio access versus core? And again, really taking that back to energy efficiency outcomes. So, some of the work we've been doing with Wind River and Red Hat and some of our ecosystem partners around that for radio access network versus core. Really again, optimizing for those different use cases and the outcomes of those start to come in from an energy utilization perspective >> So, 85% improvement in power consumption. Of course you're doing, I don't know, 2, 300% more work, right? So, let's say, and I'm just sort of spit balling numbers but, let's say that historically powers on the P&L has been, I don't know, single digits, maybe 10%. Now, it's popping up the much higher. >> Udayan: Huge >> Right? >> I mean, I don't know what the number is. Is it over 20% in some cases or is it, do you have a sense of that? Or let's say it is. The objective I presume is you're probably not going to lower the power bill overall, but you're going to be able to lower the percent of cost on the OpEx as you grow, right? I mean, we're talking about 5G networks. So much more data >> Capacity increasing. >> Yeah, and so is it, am I right about that the carriers, the best they can hope for is to sort of stay even on that percentage or maybe somewhat lower that percentage? Or, do you think they can actually cut the bill? What's the goal? What are they trying to do? >> The goal is to cut the bill. >> It is! >> And the way you get started to cut the bill is, as I said, first of all on the radio side. Start to see where the improvements are and look, there's not a whole lot there to be done. I mean, the PS are as efficient as they can be, but as I said, there are things in DPD and all that still can be improved. But then, sleep modes and all, yes there are efficiencies in there. But, I'll give you one important, another interesting data point. We did a work with ACG Research on our 16G platform. The power edge service that we have recently launched based on Intel's Sapphire Rapids. And, if you look at the study there. 30% TCR reduction, 10% in CapEx gains, 30% in OpEx gains from moving away from these legacy monolithic architectures to cloud native architectures. And, a large part of that OpEx gain really starts to come from energy to the point of 800 metric tonnes of carbon reduction to the point of you could have, and if you really translate that to around 160 homes electric use per year, right? So yes, I mean the opportunity there is to reduce the bill. >> Wow, that's big, big goal guys. We got to run. But, thank you for informing the audience on the importance and how you get there. So, appreciate that. >> One thing that bears mentioning really quickly before we wrap, a lot of these things we're talking about are happening in remote locations. >> Oh, back to that point of distributed nature of telecom. >> Yes, we talked about a BBU being at the base of a tower that could be up on a mountain somewhere. >> No, you made the point. You can't just say, oh, hey we're going to go find ambient air or going to go... >> They don't necessarily... >> Go next to a waterfall. >> We don't necessarily have the greatest hydro tower. >> All right, we got to go. Thanks you guys. Alright, keep it right there. Wall to wall coverage is day two of theCUBE's coverage of MWC 23. Stay right there, we'll be right back. (corporate outro jingle)

>> Now we're recording. >> All right. >> Appreciate that, Hannah. >> Yeah, so I mean, I think in general we continue to do very, very well as a company. I think like everybody, there's economic headwinds today that are unavoidable, but I think we have a couple things going for us. One, we're in the cyberspace, which I think is, for the most part, recession proof as an industry. I think the impact of a recession will impact some vendors and some categories, but in general, I think the industry is pretty resilient. It's like the power industry, no? Recession or not, you still need electricity to your house. Cybersecurity is almost becoming a utility like that as far as the needs of companies go. I think for us, we also have the ability to do the security, the security operations, for a lot of companies, and if you look at the value proposition, the ROI for the cost of less than one to maybe two or three, depending on how big you are as a customer, what you'd have to pay for half to three security operations people, we can give you a full security operations. And so the ROI is is almost kind of brain dead simple, and so that keeps us going pretty well. And I think the other areas, we remove all that complexity for people. So in a world where you got other problems to worry about, handling all the security complexity is something that adds to that ROI. So for us, I think what we're seeing is mostly is some of the larger deals are taking a little bit longer than they have, some of the large enterprise deals, 'cause I think they are being a little more cautious about how they spend it, but in general, business is still kind of cranking along. >> Anything you can share with me that you guys have talked about publicly in terms of any metrics, or what can you tell me other than cranking? >> Yeah, I mean, I would just say we're still very, very high growth, so I think our financial profile would kind of still put us clearly in the cyber unicorn position, but I think other than that, we don't really share business metrics as a private- >> Okay, so how about headcount? >> Still growing. So we're not growing as fast as we've been growing, but I don't think we were anyway. I think we kind of, we're getting to the point of critical mass. We'll start to grow in a more kind of normal course and speed. I don't think we overhired like a lot of companies did in the past, even though we added, almost doubled the size of the company in the last 18 months. So we're still hiring, but very kind of targeted to certain roles going forward 'cause I do think we're kind of at critical mass in some of the other functions. >> You disclose headcount or no? >> We do not. >> You don't, okay. And never have? >> Not that I'm aware of, no. >> Okay, on the macro, I don't know if security's recession proof, but it's less susceptible, let's say. I've had Nikesh Arora on recently, we're at Palo Alto's Ignite, and he was saying, "Look," it's just like you were saying, "Larger deal's a little harder." A lot of times customers, he was saying customers are breaking larger deals into smaller deals, more POCs, more approvals, more people to get through the approval, not whole, blah, blah, blah. Now they're a different animal, I understand, but are you seeing similar trends, and how are you dealing with that? >> Yeah, I think the exact same trends, and I think it's just in a world where spending a dollar matters, I think a lot more oversight comes into play, a lot more reviewers, and can you shave it down here? Can you reduce the scope of the project to save money there? And I think it just caused a lot of those things. I think, in the large enterprise, I think most of those deals for companies like us and Palo and CrowdStrike and kind of the upper tier companies, they'll still go through. I think they'll just going to take a lot longer, and, yeah, maybe they're 80% of what they would've been otherwise, but there's still a lot of business to be had out there. >> So how are you dealing with that? I mean, you're talking about you double the size of the company. Is it kind of more focused on go-to-market, more sort of, maybe not overlay, but sort of SE types that are going to be doing more handholding. How have you dealt with that? Or have you just sort of said, "Hey, it is what it is, and we're not going to, we're not going to tactically respond to. We got long-term direction"? >> Yeah, I think it's more the latter. I think for us, it's we've gone through all these things before. It just takes longer now. So a lot of the steps we're taking are the same steps. We're still involved in a lot of POCs, we're involved in a lot of demos, and I don't think that changed. It's just the time between your POC and when someone sends you the PO, there's five more people now got to review things and go through a budget committee and all sorts of stuff like that. I think where we're probably focused more now is adding more and more capabilities just so we continue to be on the front foot of innovation and being relevant to the market, and trying to create more differentiators for us and the competitors. That's something that's just built into our culture, and we don't want to slow that down. And so even though the business is still doing extremely, extremely well, we want to keep investing in kind of technology. >> So the deal size, is it fair to say the initial deal size for new accounts, while it may be smaller, you're adding more capabilities, and so over time, your average contract values will go up? Are you seeing that trend? Or am I- >> Well, I would say I don't even necessarily see our average deal size has gotten smaller. I think in total, it's probably gotten a little bigger. I think what happens is when something like this happens, the old cream rises to the top thing, I think, comes into play, and you'll see some organizations instead of doing a deal with three or four vendors, they may want to pick one or two and really kind of put a lot of energy behind that. For them, they're maybe spending a little less money, but for those vendors who are amongst those getting chosen, I think they're doing pretty good. So our average deal size is pretty stable. For us, it's just a temporal thing. It's just the larger deals take a little bit longer. I don't think we're seeing much of a deal velocity difference in our mid-market commercial spaces, but in the large enterprise it's a little bit slower. But for us, we have ambitious plans in our strategy or on how we want to execute and what we want to build, and so I think we want to just continue to make sure we go down that path technically. >> So I have some questions on sort of the target markets and the cohorts you're going after, and I have some product questions. I know we're somewhat limited on time, but the historical focus has been on SMB, and I know you guys have gone in into enterprise. I'm curious as to how that's going. Any guidance you can give me on mix? Or when I talk to the big guys, right, you know who they are, the big managed service providers, MSSPs, and they're like, "Poo poo on Arctic Wolf," like, "Oh, they're (groans)." I said, "Yeah, that's what they used to say about the PC. It's just a toy. Or Microsoft SQL Server." But so I kind of love that narrative for you guys, but I'm curious from your words as to, what is that enterprise? How's the historical business doing, and how's the entrance into the enterprise going? What kind of hurdles are you having, blockers are you having to remove? Any color you can give me there would be super helpful. >> Yeah, so I think our commercial S&B business continues to do really good. Our mid-market is a very strong market for us. And I think while a lot of companies like to focus purely on large enterprise, there's a lot more mid-market companies, and a much larger piece of the IT puzzle collectively is in mid-market than it is large enterprise. That being said, we started to get pulled into the large enterprise not because we're a toy but because we're quite a comprehensive service. And so I think what we're trying to do from a roadmap perspective is catch up with some of the kind of capabilities that a large enterprise would want from us that a potential mid-market customer wouldn't. In some case, it's not doing more. It's just doing it different. Like, so we have a very kind of hands-on engagement with some of our smaller customers, something we call our concierge. Some of the large enterprises want more of a hybrid where they do some stuff and you do some stuff. And so kind of building that capability into the platform is something that's really important for us. Just how we engage with them as far as giving 'em access to their data, the certain APIs they want, things of that nature, what we're building out for large enterprise, but the demand by large enterprise on our business is enormous. And so it's really just us kind of catching up with some of the kind of the features that they want that we lack today, but many of 'em are still signing up with us, obviously, and in lieu of that, knowing that it's coming soon. And so I think if you look at the growth of our large enterprise, it's one of our fastest growing segments, and I think it shows anything but we're a toy. I would be shocked, frankly, if there's an MSSP, and, of course, we don't see ourself as an MSSP, but I'd be shocked if any of them operate a platform at the scale that ours operates. >> Okay, so wow. A lot I want to unpack there. So just to follow up on that last question, you don't see yourself as an MSSP because why, you see yourselves as a technology platform? >> Yes, I mean, the vast, vast, vast majority of what we deliver is our own technology. So we integrate with third-party solutions mostly to bring in that telemetry. So we've built our own platform from the ground up. We have our own threat intelligence, our own detection logic. We do have our own agents and network sensors. MSSP is typically cobbling together other tools, third party off-the-shelf tools to run their SOC. Ours is all homegrown technology. So I have a whole group called Arctic Wolf Labs, is building, just cranking out ML-based detections, building out infrastructure to take feeds in from a variety of different sources. We have a full integration kind of effort where we integrate into other third parties. So when we go into a customer, we can leverage whatever they have, but at the same time, we produce some tech that if they're lacking in a certain area, we can provide that tech, particularly around things like endpoint agents and network sensors and the like. >> What about like identity, doing your own identity? >> So we don't do our own identity, but we take feeds in from things like Okta and Active Directory and the like, and we have detection logic built on top of that. So part of our value add is we were XDR before XDR was the cool thing to talk about, meaning we can look across multiple attack surfaces and come to a security conclusion where most EDR vendors started with looking just at the endpoint, right? And then they called themselves XDR because now they took in a network feed, but they still looked at it as a separate network detection. We actually look at the things across multiple attack surfaces and stitch 'em together to look at that from a security perspective. In some cases we have automatic detections that will fire. In other cases, we can surface some to a security professional who can go start pulling on that thread. >> So you don't need to purchase CrowdStrike software and integrate it. You have your own equivalent essentially. >> Well, we'll take a feed from the CrowdStrike endpoint into our platform. We don't have to rely on their detections and their alerts, and things of that nature. Now obviously anything they discover we pull in as well, it's just additional context, but we have all our own tech behind it. So we operate kind of at an MSSP scale. We have a similar value proposition in the sense that we'll use whatever the customer has, but once that data kind of comes into our pipeline, it's all our own homegrown tech from there. >> But I mean, what I like about the MSSP piece of your business is it's very high touch. It's very intimate. What I like about what you're saying is that it's software-like economics, so software, software-like part of it. >> That's what makes us the unicorn, right? Is we do have, our concierges is very hands-on. We continue to drive automation that makes our concierge security professionals more efficient, but we always want that customer to have that concierge person as, is almost an extension to their security team, or in some cases, for companies that don't even have a security team, as their security team. As we go down the path, as I mentioned, one of the things we want to be able to do is start to have a more flexible model where we can have that high touch if you want it. We can have the high touch on certain occasions, and you can do stuff. We can have low touch, like we can span the spectrum, but we never want to lose our kind of unique value proposition around the concierge, but we also want to make sure that we're providing an interface that any customer would want to use. >> So given that sort of software-like economics, I mean, services companies need this too, but especially in software, things like net revenue retention and churn are super important. How are those metrics looking? What can you share with me there? >> Yeah, I mean, again, we don't share those metrics publicly, but all's I can continue to repeat is, if you looked at all of our financial metrics, I think you would clearly put us in the unicorn category. I think very few companies are going to have the level of growth that we have on the amount of ARR that we have with the net revenue retention and the churn and upsell. All those aspects continue to be very, very strong for us. >> I want to go back to the sort of enterprise conversation. So large enterprises would engage with you as a complement to their existing SOC, correct? Is that a fair statement or not necessarily? >> It's in some cases. In some cases, they're looking to not have a SOC. So we run into a lot of cases where they want to replace their SIEM, and they want a solution like Arctic Wolf to do that. And so there's a poll, I can't remember, I think it was Forrester, IDC, one of them did it a couple years ago, and they found out that 70% of large enterprises do not want to build the SOC, and it's not 'cause they don't need one, it's 'cause they can't afford it, they can't staff it, they don't have the expertise. And you think about if you're a tech company or a bank, or something like that, of course you can do it, but if you're an international plumbing distributor, you're not going to (chuckles), someone's not going to graduate from Stanford with a cybersecurity degree and go, "Cool, I want to go work for a plumbing distributor in their SOC," right? So they're going to have trouble kind of bringing in the right talent, and as a result, it's difficult to go make a multimillion-dollar investment into a SOC if you're not going to get the quality people to operate it, so they turn to companies like us. >> Got it, so, okay, so you're talking earlier about capabilities that large enterprises require that there might be some gaps, you might lack some features. A couple questions there. One is, when you do some of those, I inferred some of that is integrations. Are those integrations sort of one-off snowflakes or are you finding that you're able to scale those across the large enterprises? That's my first question. >> Yeah, so most of the integrations are pretty straightforward. I think where we run into things that are kind of enterprise-centric, they definitely want open APIs, they want access to our platform, which we don't do today, which we are going to be doing, but we don't do that yet today. They want to do more of a SIEM replacement. So we're really kind of what we call an open XDR platform, so there's things that we would need to build to kind of do raw log ingestion. I mean, we do this today. We have raw log ingestion, we have log storage, we have log searching, but there's like some of the compliance scenarios that they need out of their SIEM. We don't do those today. And so that's kind of holding them back from getting off their SIEM and going fully onto a solution like ours. Then the other one is kind of the level of customization, so the ability to create a whole bunch of custom rules, and that ties back to, "I want to get off my SIEM. I've built all these custom rules in my SIEM, and it's great that you guys do all this automatic AI stuff in the background, but I need these very specific things to be executed on." And so trying to build an interface for them to be able to do that and then also simulate it, again, because, no matter how big they are running their SIEM and their SOC... Like, we talked to one of the largest financial institutions in the world. As far as we were told, they have the largest individual company SOC in the world, and we operate almost 15 times their size. So we always have to be careful because this is a cloud-based native platform, but someone creates some rule that then just craters the performance of the whole platform, so we have to build kind of those guardrails around it. So those are the things primarily that the large enterprises are asking for. Most of those issues are not holding them back from coming. They want to know they're coming, and we're working on all of those. >> Cool, and see, just aside, I was talking to CISO the other day, said, "If it weren't for my compliance and audit group, I would chuck my SIEM." I mean, everybody wants to get rid of their SIEM. >> I've never met anyone who likes their SIEM. >> Do you feel like you've achieved product market fit in the larger enterprise or is that still something that you're sorting out? >> So I think we know, like, we're on a path to do that. We're on a provable path to do that, so I don't think there's any surprises left. I think everything that we know we need to do for that is someone's writing code for it today. It's just a matter of getting it through the system and getting into production. So I feel pretty good about it. I think that's why we are seeing such a high growth rate in our large enterprise business, 'cause we share that feedback with some of those key customers. We have a Customer Advisory Board that we share a lot of this information with. So yeah, I mean, I feel pretty good about what we need to do. We're certainly operate at large enterprise scales, so taking in the amount of the volume of data they're going to have and the types of integrations they need. We're comfortable with that. It's just more or less the interfaces that a large enterprise would want that some of the smaller companies don't ask for. >> Do you have enough tenure in the market to get a sense as to stickiness or even indicators that will lead toward retention? Have you been at it long enough in the enterprise or you still, again, figuring that out? >> Yeah, no, I think we've been at it long enough, and our retention rates are extremely high. If anything, kind of our net retention rates, well over 100% 'cause we have opportunities to upsell into new modules and expanding the coverage of what they have today. I think the areas that if you cornered enterprise that use us and things they would complain about are things I just told you about, right? There's still some things I want to do in my Splunk, and I need an API to pull my data out and put it in my Splunk and stuff like that, and those are the things we want to enable. >> Yeah, so I can't wait till you guys go public because you got Snowflake up here, and you got Veritas down here, and I'm very curious as to where you guys go. When's the IPO? You want to tell me that? (chuckling) >> Unfortunately, it's not up to us right now. You got to get the markets- >> Yeah, I hear you. Right, if the market were better. Well, if the market were better, you think you'd be out? >> Yeah, I mean, we'd certainly be a viable candidate to go. >> Yeah, there you go. I have a question for you because I don't have a SOC. I run a small business with my co-CEO. We're like 30, 40 people W-2s, we got another 50 or so contractors, and I'm always like have one eye, sleep with one eye open 'cause of security. What is your ideal SMB customer? Think S. >> Yeah. >> Would I fit? >> Yeah, I mean you're you're right in the sweet spot. I think where the company started and where we still have a lot of value proposition, which is companies like, like you said it, you sleep with one eye open, but you don't have necessarily the technical acumen to be able to do that security for yourself, and that's where we fit in. We bring kind of this whole security, we call it Security Operations Cloud, to bear, and we have some of the best professionals in the world who can basically be your SOC for less than it would cost you to hire somebody right out of college to do IT stuff. And so the value proposition's there. You're going to get the best of the best, providing you a kind of a security service that you couldn't possibly build on your own, and that way you can go to bed at night and close both eyes. >> So (chuckling) I'm sure something else would keep me up. But so in thinking about that, our Amazon bill keeps growing and growing and growing. What would it, and I presume I can engage with you on a monthly basis, right? As a consumption model, or how's the pricing work? >> Yeah, so there's two models that we have. So typically the kind of the monthly billing type of models would be through one of our MSP partners, where they have monthly billing capabilities. Usually direct with us is more of a longer term deal, could be one, two, or three, or it's up to the customer. And so we have both of those engagement models. Were doing more and more and more through MSPs today because of that model you just described, and they do kind of target the very S in the SMB as well. >> I mean, rough numbers, even ranges. If I wanted to go with the MSP monthly, I mean, what would a small company like mine be looking at a month? >> Honestly, I do not even know the answer to that. >> We're not talking hundreds of thousands of dollars a month? >> No. God, no. God, no. No, no, no. >> I mean, order of magnitude, we're talking thousands, tens of thousands? >> Thousands, on a monthly basis. Yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. Thousands per month. So if I were to budget between 20 and $50,000 a year, I'm definitely within the envelope. Is that fair? I mean, I'm giving a wide range >> That's fair. just to try to make- >> No, that's fair. >> And if I wanted to go direct with you, I would be signing up for a longer term agreement, correct, like I do with Salesforce? >> Yeah, yeah, a year. A year would, I think, be the minimum for that, and, yeah, I think the budget you set aside is kind of right in the sweet spot there. >> Yeah, I'm interested, I'm going to... Have a sales guy call me (chuckles) somehow. >> All right, will do. >> No, I'm serious. I want to start >> I will. >> investigating these things because we sell to very large organizations. I mean, name a tech company. That's our client base, except for Arctic Wolf. We should talk about that. And increasingly they're paranoid about data protection agreements, how you're protecting your data, our data. We write a lot of software and deliver it as part of our services, so it's something that's increasingly important. It's certainly a board level discussion and beyond, and most large organizations and small companies oftentimes don't think about it or try not to. They just put their head in the sand and, "We don't want to be doing that," so. >> Yeah, I will definitely have someone get in touch with you. >> Cool. Let's see. Anything else you can tell me on the product side? Are there things that you're doing that we talked about, the gaps at the high end that you're, some of the features that you're building in, which was super helpful. Anything in the SMB space that you want to share? >> Yeah, I think the biggest thing that we're doing technically now is really trying to drive more and more automation and efficiency through our operations, and that comes through really kind of a generous use of AI. So building models around more efficient detections based upon signal, but also automating the actions of our operators so we can start to learn through the interface. When they do A and B, they always do C. Well, let's just do C for them, stuff like that. Then also building more automation as far as the response back to third-party solutions as well so we can remediate more directly on third-party products without having to get into the consoles or having our customers do it. So that's really just trying to drive efficiency in the system, and that helps provide better security outcomes but also has a big impact on our margins as well. >> I know you got to go, but I want to show you something real quick. I have data. I do a weekly program called "Breaking Analysis," and I have a partner called ETR, Enterprise Technology Research, and they have a platform. I don't know if you can see this. They have a survey platform, and each quarter, they do a survey of about 1,500 IT decision makers. They also have a survey on, they call ETS, Emerging Technology Survey. So it's private companies. And I don't want to go into it too much, but this is a sentiment graph. This is net sentiment. >> Just so you know, all I see is a white- >> Yeah, just a white bar. >> Oh, that's weird. Oh, whiteboard. Oh, here we go. How about that? >> There you go. >> Yeah, so this is a sentiment graph. So this is net sentiment and this is mindshare. And if I go to Arctic Wolf... So it's typical security, right? The 8,000 companies. And when I go here, what impresses me about this is you got a decent mindshare, that's this axis, but you've also got an N in the survey. It's about 1,500 in the survey, It's 479 Arctic Wolf customers responded to this. 57% don't know you. Oh, sorry, they're aware of you, but no plan to evaluate; 19% plan to evaluate, 7% are evaluating; 11%, no plan to utilize even though they've evaluated you; and 1% say they've evaluated you and plan to utilize. It's a small percentage, but actually it's not bad in the random sample of the world about that. And so obviously you want to get that number up, but this is a really impressive position right here that I wanted to just share with you. I do a lot of analysis weekly, and this is a really, it's completely independent survey, and you're sort of separating from the pack, as you can see. So kind of- >> Well, it's good to see that. And I think that just is a further indicator of what I was telling you. We continue to have a strong financial performance. >> Yeah, in a good market. Okay, well, thanks you guys. And hey, if I can get this recording, Hannah, I may even figure out how to write it up. (chuckles) That would be super helpful. >> Yes. We'll get that up. >> And David or Hannah, if you can send me David's contact info so I can get a salesperson in touch with him. (Hannah chuckling) >> Yeah, great. >> Yeah, we'll work on that as well. Thanks so much for both your time. >> Thanks a lot. It was great talking with you. >> Thanks, you guys. Great to meet you. >> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Bye.

(upbeat music) (upbeat music) >> Hi everybody, welcome back to our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante, here in our Boston studio. We're connecting today with Palo Alto, with John Furrier and Lisa Martin. We're also live from the show floor in Seattle. But right now, I'm here with Andy Thurai who's from Constellation Research, friend of theCUBE, and we're going to discuss the intersection of AI and security, the potential of AI, the risks and the future. Andy, welcome, good to see you again. >> Good to be here again. >> Hey, so let's get into it, can you talk a little bit about, I know this is a passion of yours, the ethical considerations surrounding AI. I mean, it's front and center in the news, and you've got accountability, privacy, security, biases. Should we be worried about AI from a security perspective? >> Absolutely, man, you should be worried. See the problem is, people don't realize this, right? I mean, the ChatGPT being a new shiny object, it's all the craze that's about. But the problem is, most of the content that's produced either by ChatGPT or even by others, it's an access, no warranties, no accountability, no whatsoever. Particularly, if it is content, it's okay. But if it is something like a code that you use for example, one of their site projects that GitHub's co-pilot, which is actually, open AI + Microsoft + GitHub's combo, they allow you to produce code, AI writes code basically, right? But when you write code, problem with that is, it's not exactly stolen, but the models are created by using the GitHub code. Actually, they're getting sued for that, saying that, "You can't use our code". Actually there's a guy, Tim Davidson, I think he's named the professor, he actually demonstrated how AI produces exact copy of the code that he has written. So right now, it's a lot of security, accountability, privacy issues. Use it either to train or to learn. But in my view, it's not ready for enterprise grade yet. >> So, Brian Behlendorf today in his keynotes said he's really worried about ChatGPT being used to automate spearfishing. So I'm like, okay, so let's unpack that a little bit. Is the concern there that it just, the ChatGPT writes such compelling phishing content, it's going to increase the probability of somebody clicking on it, or are there other dimensions? >> It could, it's not necessarily just ChatGPT for that matter, right? AI can, actually, the hackers are using it to an extent already, can use to individualize content. For example, one of the things that you are able to easily identify when you're looking at the emails that are coming in, the phishing attack is, you look at some of the key elements in it, whether it's a human or even if it's an automated AI based system. They look at certain things and they say, "Okay, this is phishing". But if you were to read an email that looks exact copy of what I would've sent to you saying that, "Hey Dave, are you on for tomorrow? Or click on this link to do whatever. It could individualize the message. That's where the volume at scale to individual to masses, that can be done using AI, which is what scares me. >> Is there a flip side to AI? How is it being utilized to help cybersecurity? And maybe you could talk about some of the more successful examples of AI in security. Like, are there use cases or are there companies out there, Andy, that you find, I know you're close to a lot of firms that are leading in this area. You and I have talked about CrowdStrike, I know Palo Alto Network, so is there a positive side to this story? >> Yeah, I mean, absolutely right. Those are some of the good companies you mentioned, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto, Darktrace is another one that I closely follow, which is a good company as well, that they're using AI for security purposes. So, here's the thing, right, when people say, when they're using malware detection systems, most of the malware detection systems that are in today's security and malware systems, use some sort of a signature and pattern scanning in the malware. You know how many identified malwares are there today in the repository, in the library? More than a billion, a billion. So, if you are to check for every malware in your repository, that's not going to work. The pattern based recognition is not going to work. So, you got to figure out a different way of identification of pattern of usage, not just a signature in a malware, right? Or there are other areas you could use, things like the usage patterns. For example, if Andy is coming in to work at a certain time, you could combine a facial recognition saying, that should he be in here at that time, and should he be doing things, what he is supposed to be doing. There are a lot of things you could do using that, right? And the AIOps use cases, which is one of my favorite areas that I work, do a lot of work, right? That it has use cases for detecting things that are anomaly, that are not supposed to be done in a way that's supposed to be, reducing the noise so it can escalate only the things what you're supposed to. So, AIOps is a great use case to use in security areas which they're not using it to an extent yet. Incident management is another area. >> So, in your malware example, you're saying, okay, known malware, pretty much anybody can deal with that now. That's sort of yesterday's problem. >> The unknown is the problem. >> It's the unknown malware really trying to understand the patterns, and the patterns are going to change. It's not like you're saying a common signature 'cause they're going to use AI to change things up at scale. >> So, here's the problem, right? The malware writers are also using AI now, right? So, they're not going to write the old malware, send it to you. They are actually creating malware on the fly. It is possible entirely in today's world that they can create a malware, drop in your systems and it'll it look for the, let me get that name right. It's called, what are we using here? It's called the TTPs, Tactics, Techniques and procedures. It'll look for that to figure out, okay, am I doing the right pattern? And then malware can sense it saying that, okay, that's the one they're detecting. I'm going to change it on the fly. So, AI can code itself on the fly, rather malware can code itself on the fly, which is going to be hard to detect. >> Well, and when you talk about TTP, when you talk to folks like Kevin Mandia of Mandiant, recently purchased by Google or other of those, the ones that have the big observation space, they'll talk about the most malicious hacks that they see, involve lateral movement. So, that's obviously something that people are looking for, AI's looking for that. And of course, the hackers are going to try to mask that lateral movement, living off the land and other things. How do you see AI impacting the future of cyber? We talked about the risks and the good. One of the things that Brian Behlendorf also mentioned is that, he pointed out that in the early days of the internet, the protocols had an inherent element of trust involved. So, things like SMTP, they didn't have security built in. So, they built up a lot of technical debt. Do you see AI being able to help with that? What steps do you see being taken to ensure that AI based systems are secure? >> So, the major difference between the older systems and the newer systems is the older systems, sadly even today, a lot of them are rules-based. If it's a rules-based systems, you are dead in the water and not able, right? So, the AI-based systems can somewhat learn from the patterns as I was talking about, for example... >> When you say rules-based systems, you mean here's the policy, here's the rule, if it's not followed but then you're saying, AI will blow that away, >> AI will blow that away, you don't have to necessarily codify things saying that, okay, if this, then do this. You don't have to necessarily do that. AI can somewhat to an extent self-learn saying that, okay, if that doesn't happen, if this is not a pattern that I know which is supposed to happen, who should I escalate this to? Who does this system belong to? And the other thing, the AIOps use case we talked about, right, the anomalies. When an anomaly happens, then the system can closely look at, saying that, okay, this is not normal behavior or usage. Is that because system's being overused or is it because somebody's trying to access something, could look at the anomaly detection, anomaly prevention or even prediction to an extent. And that's where AI could be very useful. >> So, how about the developer angle? 'Cause CNCF, the event in Seattle is all around developers, how can AI be integrated? We did a lot of talk at the conference about shift-left, we talked about shift-left and protect right. Meaning, protect the run time. So, both are important, so what steps should be taken to ensure that the AI systems are being developed in a secure and ethically sound way? What's the role of developers in that regard? >> How long do you got? (Both laughing) I think it could go for base on that. So, here's the problem, right? Lot of these companies are trying to see, I mean, you might have seen that in the news that Buzzfeed is trying to hire all of the writers to create the thing that ChatGPT is creating, a lot of enterprises... >> How, they're going to fire their writers? >> Yeah, they replace the writers. >> It's like automated automated vehicles and automated Uber drivers. >> So, the problem is a lot of enterprises still haven't done that, at least the ones I'm speaking to, are thinking about saying, "Hey, you know what, can I replace my developers because they are so expensive? Can I replace them with AI generated code?" There are a few issues with that. One, AI generated code is based on some sort of a snippet of a code that has been already available. So, you get into copyright issues, that's issue number one, right? Issue number two, if AI creates code and if something were to go wrong, who's responsible for that? There's no accountability right now. Or you as a company that's creating a system that's responsible, or is it ChatGPT, Microsoft is responsible. >> Or is the developer? >> Or the developer. >> The individual developer might be. So, they're going to be cautious about that liability. >> Well, so one of the areas where I'm seeing a lot of enterprises using this is they are using it to teach developers to learn things. You know what, if you're to code, this is a good way to code. That area, it's okay because you are just teaching them. But if you are to put an actual production code, this is what I advise companies, look, if somebody's using even to create a code, whether with or without your permission, make sure that once the code is committed, you validate that the 100%, whether it's a code or a model, or even make sure that the data what you're feeding in it is completely out of bias or no bias, right? Because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who, what, when did that, if you put out a service or a system out there, it is involving your company liability and system, and code in place. You're going to be screwed regardless of what, if something were to go wrong, you are the first person who's liable for it. >> Andy, when you think about the dangers of AI, and what keeps you up at night if you're a security professional AI and security professional. We talked about ChatGPT doing things, we don't even, the hackers are going to get creative. But what worries you the most when you think about this topic? >> A lot, a lot, right? Let's start off with an example, actually, I don't know if you had a chance to see that or not. The hackers used a bank of Hong Kong, used a defect mechanism to fool Bank of Hong Kong to transfer $35 million to a fake account, the money is gone, right? And the problem that is, what they did was, they interacted with a manager and they learned this executive who can control a big account and cloned his voice, and clone his patterns on how he calls and what he talks and the whole name he has, after learning that, they call the branch manager or bank manager and say, "Hey, you know what, hey, move this much money to whatever." So, that's one way of kind of phishing, kind of deep fake that can come. So, that's just one example. Imagine whether business is conducted by just using voice or phone calls itself. That's an area of concern if you were to do that. And imagine this became an uproar a few years back when deepfakes put out the video of Tom Cruise and others we talked about in the past, right? And Tom Cruise looked at the video, he said that he couldn't distinguish that he didn't do it. It is so close, that close, right? And they are doing things like they're using gems... >> Awesome Instagram account by the way, the guy's hilarious, right? >> So, they they're using a lot of this fake videos and fake stuff. As long as it's only for entertainment purposes, good. But imagine doing... >> That's right there but... >> But during the election season when people were to put out saying that, okay, this current president or ex-president, he said what? And the masses believe right now whatever they're seeing in TV, that's unfortunate thing. I mean, there's no fact checking involved, and you could change governments and elections using that, which is scary shit, right? >> When you think about 2016, that was when we really first saw, the weaponization of social, the heavy use of social and then 2020 was like, wow. >> To the next level. >> It was crazy. The polarization, 2024, would deepfakes... >> Could be the next level, yeah. >> I mean, it's just going to escalate. What about public policy? I want to pick your brain on this because I I've seen situations where the EU, for example, is going to restrict the ability to ship certain code if it's involved with critical infrastructure. So, let's say, example, you're running a nuclear facility and you've got the code that protects that facility, and it can be useful against some other malware that's outside of that country, but you're restricted from sending that for whatever reason, data sovereignty. Is public policy, is it aligned with the objectives in this new world? Or, I mean, normally they have to catch up. Is that going to be a problem in your view? >> It is because, when it comes to laws it's always miles behind when a new innovation happens. It's not just for AI, right? I mean, the same thing happened with IOT. Same thing happened with whatever else new emerging tech you have. The laws have to understand if there's an issue and they have to see a continued pattern of misuse of the technology, then they'll come up with that. Use in ways they are ahead of things. So, they put a lot of restrictions in place and about what AI can or cannot do, US is way behind on that, right? But California has done some things, for example, if you are talking to a chat bot, then you have to basically disclose that to the customer, saying that you're talking to a chat bot, not to a human. And that's just a very basic rule that they have in place. I mean, there are times that when a decision is made by the, problem is, AI is a black box now. The decision making is also a black box now, and we don't tell people. And the problem is if you tell people, you'll get sued immediately because every single time, we talked about that last time, there are cases involving AI making decisions, it gets thrown out the window all the time. If you can't substantiate that. So, the bottom line is that, yes, AI can assist and help you in making decisions but just use that as a assistant mechanism. A human has to be always in all the loop, right? >> Will AI help with, in your view, with supply chain, the software supply chain security or is it, it's always a balance, right? I mean, I feel like the attackers are more advanced in some ways, it's like they're on offense, let's say, right? So, when you're calling the plays, you know where you're going, the defense has to respond to it. So in that sense, the hackers have an advantage. So, what's the balance with software supply chain? Are the hackers have the advantage because they can use AI to accelerate their penetration of the software supply chain? Or will AI in your view be a good defensive mechanism? >> It could be but the problem is, the velocity and veracity of things can be done using AI, whether it's fishing, or malware, or other security and the vulnerability scanning the whole nine yards. It's scary because the hackers have a full advantage right now. And actually, I think ChatGPT recently put out two things. One is, it's able to direct the code if it is generated by ChatGPT. So basically, if you're trying to fake because a lot of schools were complaining about it, that's why they came up with the mechanism. So, if you're trying to create a fake, there's a mechanism for them to identify. But that's a step behind still, right? And the hackers are using things to their advantage. Actually ChatGPT made a rule, if you go there and read the terms and conditions, it's basically honor rule suggesting, you can't use this for certain purposes, to create a model where it creates a security threat, as that people are going to listen. So, if there's a way or mechanism to restrict hackers from using these technologies, that would be great. But I don't see that happening. So, know that these guys have an advantage, know that they're using AI, and you have to do things to be prepared. One thing I was mentioning about is, if somebody writes a code, if somebody commits a code right now, the problem is with the agile methodologies. If somebody writes a code, if they commit a code, you assume that's right and legit, you immediately push it out into production because need for speed is there, right? But if you continue to do that with the AI produced code, you're screwed. >> So, bottom line is, AI's going to speed us up in a security context or is it going to slow us down? >> Well, in the current version, the AI systems are flawed because even the ChatGPT, if you look at the the large language models, you look at the core piece of data that's available in the world as of today and then train them using that model, using the data, right? But people are forgetting that's based on today's data. The data changes on a second basis or on a minute basis. So, if I want to do something based on tomorrow or a day after, you have to retrain the models. So, the data already have a stale. So, that in itself is stale and the cost for retraining is going to be a problem too. So overall, AI is a good first step. Use that with a caution, is what I want to say. The system is flawed now, if you use it as is, you'll be screwed, it's dangerous. >> Andy, you got to go, thanks so much for coming in, appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. >> You're very welcome, so we're going wall to wall with our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante in the Boston Studio, John Furrier, Lisa Martin and Palo Alto. We're going to be live on the show floor as well, bringing in keynote speakers and others on the ground. Keep it right there for more coverage on theCUBE. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hello, this is Dave Valente with theCUBE, and one of the most gratifying aspects of my role as a host of "theCUBE TV" is I get to cover a wide range of topics. And quite often, we're able to bring to our program a level of expertise that allows us to more deeply explore and unpack some of the topics that we cover throughout the year. And one of our favorite topics, of course, is data. Now, in 2021, after being in isolation for the better part of two years, a group of industry analysts met up at AWS re:Invent and started a collaboration to look at the trends in data and predict what some likely outcomes will be for the coming year. And it resulted in a very popular session that we had last year focused on the future of data management. And I'm very excited and pleased to tell you that the 2023 edition of that predictions episode is back, and with me are five outstanding market analyst, Sanjeev Mohan of SanjMo, Tony Baer of dbInsight, Carl Olofson from IDC, Dave Menninger from Ventana Research, and Doug Henschen, VP and Principal Analyst at Constellation Research. Now, what is it that we're calling you, guys? A data pack like the rat pack? No, no, no, no, that's not it. It's the data crowd, the data crowd, and the crowd includes some of the best minds in the data analyst community. They'll discuss how data management is evolving and what listeners should prepare for in 2023. Guys, welcome back. Great to see you. >> Good to be here. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dave. (Tony and Dave faintly speaks) >> All right, before we get into 2023 predictions, we thought it'd be good to do a look back at how we did in 2022 and give a transparent assessment of those predictions. So, let's get right into it. We're going to bring these up here, the predictions from 2022, they're color-coded red, yellow, and green to signify the degree of accuracy. And I'm pleased to report there's no red. Well, maybe some of you will want to debate that grading system. But as always, we want to be open, so you can decide for yourselves. So, we're going to ask each analyst to review their 2022 prediction and explain their rating and what evidence they have that led them to their conclusion. So, Sanjeev, please kick it off. Your prediction was data governance becomes key. I know that's going to knock you guys over, but elaborate, because you had more detail when you double click on that. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much, Dave, for having us on the show today. And we self-graded ourselves. I could have very easily made my prediction from last year green, but I mentioned why I left it as yellow. I totally fully believe that data governance was in a renaissance in 2022. And why do I say that? You have to look no further than AWS launching its own data catalog called DataZone. Before that, mid-year, we saw Unity Catalog from Databricks went GA. So, overall, I saw there was tremendous movement. When you see these big players launching a new data catalog, you know that they want to be in this space. And this space is highly critical to everything that I feel we will talk about in today's call. Also, if you look at established players, I spoke at Collibra's conference, data.world, work closely with Alation, Informatica, a bunch of other companies, they all added tremendous new capabilities. So, it did become key. The reason I left it as yellow is because I had made a prediction that Collibra would go IPO, and it did not. And I don't think anyone is going IPO right now. The market is really, really down, the funding in VC IPO market. But other than that, data governance had a banner year in 2022. >> Yeah. Well, thank you for that. And of course, you saw data clean rooms being announced at AWS re:Invent, so more evidence. And I like how the fact that you included in your predictions some things that were binary, so you dinged yourself there. So, good job. Okay, Tony Baer, you're up next. Data mesh hits reality check. As you see here, you've given yourself a bright green thumbs up. (Tony laughing) Okay. Let's hear why you feel that was the case. What do you mean by reality check? >> Okay. Thanks, Dave, for having us back again. This is something I just wrote and just tried to get away from, and this just a topic just won't go away. I did speak with a number of folks, early adopters and non-adopters during the year. And I did find that basically that it pretty much validated what I was expecting, which was that there was a lot more, this has now become a front burner issue. And if I had any doubt in my mind, the evidence I would point to is what was originally intended to be a throwaway post on LinkedIn, which I just quickly scribbled down the night before leaving for re:Invent. I was packing at the time, and for some reason, I was doing Google search on data mesh. And I happened to have tripped across this ridiculous article, I will not say where, because it doesn't deserve any publicity, about the eight (Dave laughing) best data mesh software companies of 2022. (Tony laughing) One of my predictions was that you'd see data mesh washing. And I just quickly just hopped on that maybe three sentences and wrote it at about a couple minutes saying this is hogwash, essentially. (laughs) And that just reun... And then, I left for re:Invent. And the next night, when I got into my Vegas hotel room, I clicked on my computer. I saw a 15,000 hits on that post, which was the most hits of any single post I put all year. And the responses were wildly pro and con. So, it pretty much validates my expectation in that data mesh really did hit a lot more scrutiny over this past year. >> Yeah, thank you for that. I remember that article. I remember rolling my eyes when I saw it, and then I recently, (Tony laughing) I talked to Walmart and they actually invoked Martin Fowler and they said that they're working through their data mesh. So, it takes a really lot of thought, and it really, as we've talked about, is really as much an organizational construct. You're not buying data mesh >> Bingo. >> to your point. Okay. Thank you, Tony. Carl Olofson, here we go. You've graded yourself a yellow in the prediction of graph databases. Take off. Please elaborate. >> Yeah, sure. So, I realized in looking at the prediction that it seemed to imply that graph databases could be a major factor in the data world in 2022, which obviously didn't become the case. It was an error on my part in that I should have said it in the right context. It's really a three to five-year time period that graph databases will really become significant, because they still need accepted methodologies that can be applied in a business context as well as proper tools in order for people to be able to use them seriously. But I stand by the idea that it is taking off, because for one thing, Neo4j, which is the leading independent graph database provider, had a very good year. And also, we're seeing interesting developments in terms of things like AWS with Neptune and with Oracle providing graph support in Oracle database this past year. Those things are, as I said, growing gradually. There are other companies like TigerGraph and so forth, that deserve watching as well. But as far as becoming mainstream, it's going to be a few years before we get all the elements together to make that happen. Like any new technology, you have to create an environment in which ordinary people without a whole ton of technical training can actually apply the technology to solve business problems. >> Yeah, thank you for that. These specialized databases, graph databases, time series databases, you see them embedded into mainstream data platforms, but there's a place for these specialized databases, I would suspect we're going to see new types of databases emerge with all this cloud sprawl that we have and maybe to the edge. >> Well, part of it is that it's not as specialized as you might think it. You can apply graphs to great many workloads and use cases. It's just that people have yet to fully explore and discover what those are. >> Yeah. >> And so, it's going to be a process. (laughs) >> All right, Dave Menninger, streaming data permeates the landscape. You gave yourself a yellow. Why? >> Well, I couldn't think of a appropriate combination of yellow and green. Maybe I should have used chartreuse, (Dave laughing) but I was probably a little hard on myself making it yellow. This is another type of specialized data processing like Carl was talking about graph databases is a stream processing, and nearly every data platform offers streaming capabilities now. Often, it's based on Kafka. If you look at Confluent, their revenues have grown at more than 50%, continue to grow at more than 50% a year. They're expected to do more than half a billion dollars in revenue this year. But the thing that hasn't happened yet, and to be honest, they didn't necessarily expect it to happen in one year, is that streaming hasn't become the default way in which we deal with data. It's still a sidecar to data at rest. And I do expect that we'll continue to see streaming become more and more mainstream. I do expect perhaps in the five-year timeframe that we will first deal with data as streaming and then at rest, but the worlds are starting to merge. And we even see some vendors bringing products to market, such as K2View, Hazelcast, and RisingWave Labs. So, in addition to all those core data platform vendors adding these capabilities, there are new vendors approaching this market as well. >> I like the tough grading system, and it's not trivial. And when you talk to practitioners doing this stuff, there's still some complications in the data pipeline. And so, but I think, you're right, it probably was a yellow plus. Doug Henschen, data lakehouses will emerge as dominant. When you talk to people about lakehouses, practitioners, they all use that term. They certainly use the term data lake, but now, they're using lakehouse more and more. What's your thoughts on here? Why the green? What's your evidence there? >> Well, I think, I was accurate. I spoke about it specifically as something that vendors would be pursuing. And we saw yet more lakehouse advocacy in 2022. Google introduced its BigLake service alongside BigQuery. Salesforce introduced Genie, which is really a lakehouse architecture. And it was a safe prediction to say vendors are going to be pursuing this in that AWS, Cloudera, Databricks, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Salesforce now, IBM, all advocate this idea of a single platform for all of your data. Now, the trend was also supported in 2023, in that we saw a big embrace of Apache Iceberg in 2022. That's a structured table format. It's used with these lakehouse platforms. It's open, so it ensures portability and it also ensures performance. And that's a structured table that helps with the warehouse side performance. But among those announcements, Snowflake, Google, Cloud Era, SAP, Salesforce, IBM, all embraced Iceberg. But keep in mind, again, I'm talking about this as something that vendors are pursuing as their approach. So, they're advocating end users. It's very cutting edge. I'd say the top, leading edge, 5% of of companies have really embraced the lakehouse. I think, we're now seeing the fast followers, the next 20 to 25% of firms embracing this idea and embracing a lakehouse architecture. I recall Christian Kleinerman at the big Snowflake event last summer, making the announcement about Iceberg, and he asked for a show of hands for any of you in the audience at the keynote, have you heard of Iceberg? And just a smattering of hands went up. So, the vendors are ahead of the curve. They're pushing this trend, and we're now seeing a little bit more mainstream uptake. >> Good. Doug, I was there. It was you, me, and I think, two other hands were up. That was just humorous. (Doug laughing) All right, well, so I liked the fact that we had some yellow and some green. When you think about these things, there's the prediction itself. Did it come true or not? There are the sub predictions that you guys make, and of course, the degree of difficulty. So, thank you for that open assessment. All right, let's get into the 2023 predictions. Let's bring up the predictions. Sanjeev, you're going first. You've got a prediction around unified metadata. What's the prediction, please? >> So, my prediction is that metadata space is currently a mess. It needs to get unified. There are too many use cases of metadata, which are being addressed by disparate systems. For example, data quality has become really big in the last couple of years, data observability, the whole catalog space is actually, people don't like to use the word data catalog anymore, because data catalog sounds like it's a catalog, a museum, if you may, of metadata that you go and admire. So, what I'm saying is that in 2023, we will see that metadata will become the driving force behind things like data ops, things like orchestration of tasks using metadata, not rules. Not saying that if this fails, then do this, if this succeeds, go do that. But it's like getting to the metadata level, and then making a decision as to what to orchestrate, what to automate, how to do data quality check, data observability. So, this space is starting to gel, and I see there'll be more maturation in the metadata space. Even security privacy, some of these topics, which are handled separately. And I'm just talking about data security and data privacy. I'm not talking about infrastructure security. These also need to merge into a unified metadata management piece with some knowledge graph, semantic layer on top, so you can do analytics on it. So, it's no longer something that sits on the side, it's limited in its scope. It is actually the very engine, the very glue that is going to connect data producers and consumers. >> Great. Thank you for that. Doug. Doug Henschen, any thoughts on what Sanjeev just said? Do you agree? Do you disagree? >> Well, I agree with many aspects of what he says. I think, there's a huge opportunity for consolidation and streamlining of these as aspects of governance. Last year, Sanjeev, you said something like, we'll see more people using catalogs than BI. And I have to disagree. I don't think this is a category that's headed for mainstream adoption. It's a behind the scenes activity for the wonky few, or better yet, companies want machine learning and automation to take care of these messy details. We've seen these waves of management technologies, some of the latest data observability, customer data platform, but they failed to sweep away all the earlier investments in data quality and master data management. So, yes, I hope the latest tech offers, glimmers that there's going to be a better, cleaner way of addressing these things. But to my mind, the business leaders, including the CIO, only want to spend as much time and effort and money and resources on these sorts of things to avoid getting breached, ending up in headlines, getting fired or going to jail. So, vendors bring on the ML and AI smarts and the automation of these sorts of activities. >> So, if I may say something, the reason why we have this dichotomy between data catalog and the BI vendors is because data catalogs are very soon, not going to be standalone products, in my opinion. They're going to get embedded. So, when you use a BI tool, you'll actually use the catalog to find out what is it that you want to do, whether you are looking for data or you're looking for an existing dashboard. So, the catalog becomes embedded into the BI tool. >> Hey, Dave Menninger, sometimes you have some data in your back pocket. Do you have any stats (chuckles) on this topic? >> No, I'm glad you asked, because I'm going to... Now, data catalogs are something that's interesting. Sanjeev made a statement that data catalogs are falling out of favor. I don't care what you call them. They're valuable to organizations. Our research shows that organizations that have adequate data catalog technologies are three times more likely to express satisfaction with their analytics for just the reasons that Sanjeev was talking about. You can find what you want, you know you're getting the right information, you know whether or not it's trusted. So, those are good things. So, we expect to see the capabilities, whether it's embedded or separate. We expect to see those capabilities continue to permeate the market. >> And a lot of those catalogs are driven now by machine learning and things. So, they're learning from those patterns of usage by people when people use the data. (airy laughs) >> All right. Okay. Thank you, guys. All right. Let's move on to the next one. Tony Bear, let's bring up the predictions. You got something in here about the modern data stack. We need to rethink it. Is the modern data stack getting long at the tooth? Is it not so modern anymore? >> I think, in a way, it's got almost too modern. It's gotten too, I don't know if it's being long in the tooth, but it is getting long. The modern data stack, it's traditionally been defined as basically you have the data platform, which would be the operational database and the data warehouse. And in between, you have all the tools that are necessary to essentially get that data from the operational realm or the streaming realm for that matter into basically the data warehouse, or as we might be seeing more and more, the data lakehouse. And I think, what's important here is that, or I think, we have seen a lot of progress, and this would be in the cloud, is with the SaaS services. And especially you see that in the modern data stack, which is like all these players, not just the MongoDBs or the Oracles or the Amazons have their database platforms. You see they have the Informatica's, and all the other players there in Fivetrans have their own SaaS services. And within those SaaS services, you get a certain degree of simplicity, which is it takes all the housekeeping off the shoulders of the customers. That's a good thing. The problem is that what we're getting to unfortunately is what I would call lots of islands of simplicity, which means that it leads it (Dave laughing) to the customer to have to integrate or put all that stuff together. It's a complex tool chain. And so, what we really need to think about here, we have too many pieces. And going back to the discussion of catalogs, it's like we have so many catalogs out there, which one do we use? 'Cause chances are of most organizations do not rely on a single catalog at this point. What I'm calling on all the data providers or all the SaaS service providers, is to literally get it together and essentially make this modern data stack less of a stack, make it more of a blending of an end-to-end solution. And that can come in a number of different ways. Part of it is that we're data platform providers have been adding services that are adjacent. And there's some very good examples of this. We've seen progress over the past year or so. For instance, MongoDB integrating search. It's a very common, I guess, sort of tool that basically, that the applications that are developed on MongoDB use, so MongoDB then built it into the database rather than requiring an extra elastic search or open search stack. Amazon just... AWS just did the zero-ETL, which is a first step towards simplifying the process from going from Aurora to Redshift. You've seen same thing with Google, BigQuery integrating basically streaming pipelines. And you're seeing also a lot of movement in database machine learning. So, there's some good moves in this direction. I expect to see more than this year. Part of it's from basically the SaaS platform is adding some functionality. But I also see more importantly, because you're never going to get... This is like asking your data team and your developers, herding cats to standardizing the same tool. In most organizations, that is not going to happen. So, take a look at the most popular combinations of tools and start to come up with some pre-built integrations and pre-built orchestrations, and offer some promotional pricing, maybe not quite two for, but in other words, get two products for the price of two services or for the price of one and a half. I see a lot of potential for this. And it's to me, if the class was to simplify things, this is the next logical step and I expect to see more of this here. >> Yeah, and you see in Oracle, MySQL heat wave, yet another example of eliminating that ETL. Carl Olofson, today, if you think about the data stack and the application stack, they're largely separate. Do you have any thoughts on how that's going to play out? Does that play into this prediction? What do you think? >> Well, I think, that the... I really like Tony's phrase, islands of simplification. It really says (Tony chuckles) what's going on here, which is that all these different vendors you ask about, about how these stacks work. All these different vendors have their own stack vision. And you can... One application group is going to use one, and another application group is going to use another. And some people will say, let's go to, like you go to a Informatica conference and they say, we should be the center of your universe, but you can't connect everything in your universe to Informatica, so you need to use other things. So, the challenge is how do we make those things work together? As Tony has said, and I totally agree, we're never going to get to the point where people standardize on one organizing system. So, the alternative is to have metadata that can be shared amongst those systems and protocols that allow those systems to coordinate their operations. This is standard stuff. It's not easy. But the motive for the vendors is that they can become more active critical players in the enterprise. And of course, the motive for the customer is that things will run better and more completely. So, I've been looking at this in terms of two kinds of metadata. One is the meaning metadata, which says what data can be put together. The other is the operational metadata, which says basically where did it come from? Who created it? What's its current state? What's the security level? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The good news is the operational stuff can actually be done automatically, whereas the meaning stuff requires some human intervention. And as we've already heard from, was it Doug, I think, people are disinclined to put a lot of definition into meaning metadata. So, that may be the harder one, but coordination is key. This problem has been with us forever, but with the addition of new data sources, with streaming data with data in different formats, the whole thing has, it's been like what a customer of mine used to say, "I understand your product can make my system run faster, but right now I just feel I'm putting my problems on roller skates. (chuckles) I don't need that to accelerate what's already not working." >> Excellent. Okay, Carl, let's stay with you. I remember in the early days of the big data movement, Hadoop movement, NoSQL was the big thing. And I remember Amr Awadallah said to us in theCUBE that SQL is the killer app for big data. So, your prediction here, if we bring that up is SQL is back. Please elaborate. >> Yeah. So, of course, some people would say, well, it never left. Actually, that's probably closer to true, but in the perception of the marketplace, there's been all this noise about alternative ways of storing, retrieving data, whether it's in key value stores or document databases and so forth. We're getting a lot of messaging that for a while had persuaded people that, oh, we're not going to do analytics in SQL anymore. We're going to use Spark for everything, except that only a handful of people know how to use Spark. Oh, well, that's a problem. Well, how about, and for ordinary conventional business analytics, Spark is like an over-engineered solution to the problem. SQL works just great. What's happened in the past couple years, and what's going to continue to happen is that SQL is insinuating itself into everything we're seeing. We're seeing all the major data lake providers offering SQL support, whether it's Databricks or... And of course, Snowflake is loving this, because that is what they do, and their success is certainly points to the success of SQL, even MongoDB. And we were all, I think, at the MongoDB conference where on one day, we hear SQL is dead. They're not teaching SQL in schools anymore, and this kind of thing. And then, a couple days later at the same conference, they announced we're adding a new analytic capability-based on SQL. But didn't you just say SQL is dead? So, the reality is that SQL is better understood than most other methods of certainly of retrieving and finding data in a data collection, no matter whether it happens to be relational or non-relational. And even in systems that are very non-relational, such as graph and document databases, their query languages are being built or extended to resemble SQL, because SQL is something people understand. >> Now, you remember when we were in high school and you had had to take the... Your debating in the class and you were forced to take one side and defend it. So, I was was at a Vertica conference one time up on stage with Curt Monash, and I had to take the NoSQL, the world is changing paradigm shift. And so just to be controversial, I said to him, Curt Monash, I said, who really needs acid compliance anyway? Tony Baer. And so, (chuckles) of course, his head exploded, but what are your thoughts (guests laughing) on all this? >> Well, my first thought is congratulations, Dave, for surviving being up on stage with Curt Monash. >> Amen. (group laughing) >> I definitely would concur with Carl. We actually are definitely seeing a SQL renaissance and if there's any proof of the pudding here, I see lakehouse is being icing on the cake. As Doug had predicted last year, now, (clears throat) for the record, I think, Doug was about a year ahead of time in his predictions that this year is really the year that I see (clears throat) the lakehouse ecosystems really firming up. You saw the first shots last year. But anyway, on this, data lakes will not go away. I've actually, I'm on the home stretch of doing a market, a landscape on the lakehouse. And lakehouse will not replace data lakes in terms of that. There is the need for those, data scientists who do know Python, who knows Spark, to go in there and basically do their thing without all the restrictions or the constraints of a pre-built, pre-designed table structure. I get that. Same thing for developing models. But on the other hand, there is huge need. Basically, (clears throat) maybe MongoDB was saying that we're not teaching SQL anymore. Well, maybe we have an oversupply of SQL developers. Well, I'm being facetious there, but there is a huge skills based in SQL. Analytics have been built on SQL. They came with lakehouse and why this really helps to fuel a SQL revival is that the core need in the data lake, what brought on the lakehouse was not so much SQL, it was a need for acid. And what was the best way to do it? It was through a relational table structure. So, the whole idea of acid in the lakehouse was not to turn it into a transaction database, but to make the data trusted, secure, and more granularly governed, where you could govern down to column and row level, which you really could not do in a data lake or a file system. So, while lakehouse can be queried in a manner, you can go in there with Python or whatever, it's built on a relational table structure. And so, for that end, for those types of data lakes, it becomes the end state. You cannot bypass that table structure as I learned the hard way during my research. So, the bottom line I'd say here is that lakehouse is proof that we're starting to see the revenge of the SQL nerds. (Dave chuckles) >> Excellent. Okay, let's bring up back up the predictions. Dave Menninger, this one's really thought-provoking and interesting. We're hearing things like data as code, new data applications, machines actually generating plans with no human involvement. And your prediction is the definition of data is expanding. What do you mean by that? >> So, I think, for too long, we've thought about data as the, I would say facts that we collect the readings off of devices and things like that, but data on its own is really insufficient. Organizations need to manipulate that data and examine derivatives of the data to really understand what's happening in their organization, why has it happened, and to project what might happen in the future. And my comment is that these data derivatives need to be supported and managed just like the data needs to be managed. We can't treat this as entirely separate. Think about all the governance discussions we've had. Think about the metadata discussions we've had. If you separate these things, now you've got more moving parts. We're talking about simplicity and simplifying the stack. So, if these things are treated separately, it creates much more complexity. I also think it creates a little bit of a myopic view on the part of the IT organizations that are acquiring these technologies. They need to think more broadly. So, for instance, metrics. Metric stores are becoming much more common part of the tooling that's part of a data platform. Similarly, feature stores are gaining traction. So, those are designed to promote the reuse and consistency across the AI and ML initiatives. The elements that are used in developing an AI or ML model. And let me go back to metrics and just clarify what I mean by that. So, any type of formula involving the data points. I'm distinguishing metrics from features that are used in AI and ML models. And the data platforms themselves are increasingly managing the models as an element of data. So, just like figuring out how to calculate a metric. Well, if you're going to have the features associated with an AI and ML model, you probably need to be managing the model that's associated with those features. The other element where I see expansion is around external data. Organizations for decades have been focused on the data that they generate within their own organization. We see more and more of these platforms acquiring and publishing data to external third-party sources, whether they're within some sort of a partner ecosystem or whether it's a commercial distribution of that information. And our research shows that when organizations use external data, they derive even more benefits from the various analyses that they're conducting. And the last great frontier in my opinion on this expanding world of data is the world of driver-based planning. Very few of the major data platform providers provide these capabilities today. These are the types of things you would do in a spreadsheet. And we all know the issues associated with spreadsheets. They're hard to govern, they're error-prone. And so, if we can take that type of analysis, collecting the occupancy of a rental property, the projected rise in rental rates, the fluctuations perhaps in occupancy, the interest rates associated with financing that property, we can project forward. And that's a very common thing to do. What the income might look like from that property income, the expenses, we can plan and purchase things appropriately. So, I think, we need this broader purview and I'm beginning to see some of those things happen. And the evidence today I would say, is more focused around the metric stores and the feature stores starting to see vendors offer those capabilities. And we're starting to see the ML ops elements of managing the AI and ML models find their way closer to the data platforms as well. >> Very interesting. When I hear metrics, I think of KPIs, I think of data apps, orchestrate people and places and things to optimize around a set of KPIs. It sounds like a metadata challenge more... Somebody once predicted they'll have more metadata than data. Carl, what are your thoughts on this prediction? >> Yeah, I think that what Dave is describing as data derivatives is in a way, another word for what I was calling operational metadata, which not about the data itself, but how it's used, where it came from, what the rules are governing it, and that kind of thing. If you have a rich enough set of those things, then not only can you do a model of how well your vacation property rental may do in terms of income, but also how well your application that's measuring that is doing for you. In other words, how many times have I used it, how much data have I used and what is the relationship between the data that I've used and the benefits that I've derived from using it? Well, we don't have ways of doing that. What's interesting to me is that folks in the content world are way ahead of us here, because they have always tracked their content using these kinds of attributes. Where did it come from? When was it created, when was it modified? Who modified it? And so on and so forth. We need to do more of that with the structure data that we have, so that we can track what it's used. And also, it tells us how well we're doing with it. Is it really benefiting us? Are we being efficient? Are there improvements in processes that we need to consider? Because maybe data gets created and then it isn't used or it gets used, but it gets altered in some way that actually misleads people. (laughs) So, we need the mechanisms to be able to do that. So, I would say that that's... And I'd say that it's true that we need that stuff. I think, that starting to expand is probably the right way to put it. It's going to be expanding for some time. I think, we're still a distance from having all that stuff really working together. >> Maybe we should say it's gestating. (Dave and Carl laughing) >> Sorry, if I may- >> Sanjeev, yeah, I was going to say this... Sanjeev, please comment. This sounds to me like it supports Zhamak Dehghani's principles, but please. >> Absolutely. So, whether we call it data mesh or not, I'm not getting into that conversation, (Dave chuckles) but data (audio breaking) (Tony laughing) everything that I'm hearing what Dave is saying, Carl, this is the year when data products will start to take off. I'm not saying they'll become mainstream. They may take a couple of years to become so, but this is data products, all this thing about vacation rentals and how is it doing, that data is coming from different sources. I'm packaging it into our data product. And to Carl's point, there's a whole operational metadata associated with it. The idea is for organizations to see things like developer productivity, how many releases am I doing of this? What data products are most popular? I'm actually in right now in the process of formulating this concept that just like we had data catalogs, we are very soon going to be requiring data products catalog. So, I can discover these data products. I'm not just creating data products left, right, and center. I need to know, do they already exist? What is the usage? If no one is using a data product, maybe I want to retire and save cost. But this is a data product. Now, there's a associated thing that is also getting debated quite a bit called data contracts. And a data contract to me is literally just formalization of all these aspects of a product. How do you use it? What is the SLA on it, what is the quality that I am prescribing? So, data product, in my opinion, shifts the conversation to the consumers or to the business people. Up to this point when, Dave, you're talking about data and all of data discovery curation is a very data producer-centric. So, I think, we'll see a shift more into the consumer space. >> Yeah. Dave, can I just jump in there just very quickly there, which is that what Sanjeev has been saying there, this is really central to what Zhamak has been talking about. It's basically about making, one, data products are about the lifecycle management of data. Metadata is just elemental to that. And essentially, one of the things that she calls for is making data products discoverable. That's exactly what Sanjeev was talking about. >> By the way, did everyone just no notice how Sanjeev just snuck in another prediction there? So, we've got- >> Yeah. (group laughing) >> But you- >> Can we also say that he snuck in, I think, the term that we'll remember today, which is metadata museums. >> Yeah, but- >> Yeah. >> And also comment to, Tony, to your last year's prediction, you're really talking about it's not something that you're going to buy from a vendor. >> No. >> It's very specific >> Mm-hmm. >> to an organization, their own data product. So, touche on that one. Okay, last prediction. Let's bring them up. Doug Henschen, BI analytics is headed to embedding. What does that mean? >> Well, we all know that conventional BI dashboarding reporting is really commoditized from a vendor perspective. It never enjoyed truly mainstream adoption. Always that 25% of employees are really using these things. I'm seeing rising interest in embedding concise analytics at the point of decision or better still, using analytics as triggers for automation and workflows, and not even necessitating human interaction with visualizations, for example, if we have confidence in the analytics. So, leading companies are pushing for next generation applications, part of this low-code, no-code movement we've seen. And they want to build that decision support right into the app. So, the analytic is right there. Leading enterprise apps vendors, Salesforce, SAP, Microsoft, Oracle, they're all building smart apps with the analytics predictions, even recommendations built into these applications. And I think, the progressive BI analytics vendors are supporting this idea of driving insight to action, not necessarily necessitating humans interacting with it if there's confidence. So, we want prediction, we want embedding, we want automation. This low-code, no-code development movement is very important to bringing the analytics to where people are doing their work. We got to move beyond the, what I call swivel chair integration, between where people do their work and going off to separate reports and dashboards, and having to interpret and analyze before you can go back and do take action. >> And Dave Menninger, today, if you want, analytics or you want to absorb what's happening in the business, you typically got to go ask an expert, and then wait. So, what are your thoughts on Doug's prediction? >> I'm in total agreement with Doug. I'm going to say that collectively... So, how did we get here? I'm going to say collectively as an industry, we made a mistake. We made BI and analytics separate from the operational systems. Now, okay, it wasn't really a mistake. We were limited by the technology available at the time. Decades ago, we had to separate these two systems, so that the analytics didn't impact the operations. You don't want the operations preventing you from being able to do a transaction. But we've gone beyond that now. We can bring these two systems and worlds together and organizations recognize that need to change. As Doug said, the majority of the workforce and the majority of organizations doesn't have access to analytics. That's wrong. (chuckles) We've got to change that. And one of the ways that's going to change is with embedded analytics. 2/3 of organizations recognize that embedded analytics are important and it even ranks higher in importance than AI and ML in those organizations. So, it's interesting. This is a really important topic to the organizations that are consuming these technologies. The good news is it works. Organizations that have embraced embedded analytics are more comfortable with self-service than those that have not, as opposed to turning somebody loose, in the wild with the data. They're given a guided path to the data. And the research shows that 65% of organizations that have adopted embedded analytics are comfortable with self-service compared with just 40% of organizations that are turning people loose in an ad hoc way with the data. So, totally behind Doug's predictions. >> Can I just break in with something here, a comment on what Dave said about what Doug said, which (laughs) is that I totally agree with what you said about embedded analytics. And at IDC, we made a prediction in our future intelligence, future of intelligence service three years ago that this was going to happen. And the thing that we're waiting for is for developers to build... You have to write the applications to work that way. It just doesn't happen automagically. Developers have to write applications that reference analytic data and apply it while they're running. And that could involve simple things like complex queries against the live data, which is through something that I've been calling analytic transaction processing. Or it could be through something more sophisticated that involves AI operations as Doug has been suggesting, where the result is enacted pretty much automatically unless the scores are too low and you need to have a human being look at it. So, I think that that is definitely something we've been watching for. I'm not sure how soon it will come, because it seems to take a long time for people to change their thinking. But I think, as Dave was saying, once they do and they apply these principles in their application development, the rewards are great. >> Yeah, this is very much, I would say, very consistent with what we were talking about, I was talking about before, about basically rethinking the modern data stack and going into more of an end-to-end solution solution. I think, that what we're talking about clearly here is operational analytics. There'll still be a need for your data scientists to go offline just in their data lakes to do all that very exploratory and that deep modeling. But clearly, it just makes sense to bring operational analytics into where people work into their workspace and further flatten that modern data stack. >> But with all this metadata and all this intelligence, we're talking about injecting AI into applications, it does seem like we're entering a new era of not only data, but new era of apps. Today, most applications are about filling forms out or codifying processes and require a human input. And it seems like there's enough data now and enough intelligence in the system that the system can actually pull data from, whether it's the transaction system, e-commerce, the supply chain, ERP, and actually do something with that data without human involvement, present it to humans. Do you guys see this as a new frontier? >> I think, that's certainly- >> Very much so, but it's going to take a while, as Carl said. You have to design it, you have to get the prediction into the system, you have to get the analytics at the point of decision has to be relevant to that decision point. >> And I also recall basically a lot of the ERP vendors back like 10 years ago, we're promising that. And the fact that we're still looking at the promises shows just how difficult, how much of a challenge it is to get to what Doug's saying. >> One element that could be applied in this case is (indistinct) architecture. If applications are developed that are event-driven rather than following the script or sequence that some programmer or designer had preconceived, then you'll have much more flexible applications. You can inject decisions at various points using this technology much more easily. It's a completely different way of writing applications. And it actually involves a lot more data, which is why we should all like it. (laughs) But in the end (Tony laughing) it's more stable, it's easier to manage, easier to maintain, and it's actually more efficient, which is the result of an MIT study from about 10 years ago, and still, we are not seeing this come to fruition in most business applications. >> And do you think it's going to require a new type of data platform database? Today, data's all far-flung. We see that's all over the clouds and at the edge. Today, you cache- >> We need a super cloud. >> You cache that data, you're throwing into memory. I mentioned, MySQL heat wave. There are other examples where it's a brute force approach, but maybe we need new ways of laying data out on disk and new database architectures, and just when we thought we had it all figured out. >> Well, without referring to disk, which to my mind, is almost like talking about cave painting. I think, that (Dave laughing) all the things that have been mentioned by all of us today are elements of what I'm talking about. In other words, the whole improvement of the data mesh, the improvement of metadata across the board and improvement of the ability to track data and judge its freshness the way we judge the freshness of a melon or something like that, to determine whether we can still use it. Is it still good? That kind of thing. Bringing together data from multiple sources dynamically and real-time requires all the things we've been talking about. All the predictions that we've talked about today add up to elements that can make this happen. >> Well, guys, it's always tremendous to get these wonderful minds together and get your insights, and I love how it shapes the outcome here of the predictions, and let's see how we did. We're going to leave it there. I want to thank Sanjeev, Tony, Carl, David, and Doug. Really appreciate the collaboration and thought that you guys put into these sessions. Really, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dave. >> Thank you for having us. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right, this is Dave Valente for theCUBE, signing off for now. Follow these guys on social media. Look for coverage on siliconangle.com, theCUBE.net. Thank you for watching. (upbeat music)

Hello and welcome back to Supercloud 2 where we examine the intersection of cloud and data in the 2020s. My name is Dave Vellante. Our Supercloud panel, our power panel is back. Maribel Lopez is the founder and principal analyst at Lopez Research. Sanjeev Mohan is former Gartner analyst and principal at Sanjeev Mohan. And Keith Townsend is the CTO advisor. Folks, welcome back and thanks for your participation today. Good to see you. >> Okay, great. >> Great to see you. >> Thanks. Let me start, Maribel, with you. Bob Muglia, we had a conversation as part of Supercloud the other day. And he said, "Dave, I like the work, you got to simplify this a little bit." So he said, quote, "A Supercloud is a platform." He said, "Think of it as a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." And then Nelu Mihai said, "Well, wait a minute. This is just going to create more stove pipes. We need more standards in an architecture," which is kind of what Berkeley Sky Computing initiative is all about. So there's a sort of a debate going on. Is supercloud an architecture, a platform? Or maybe it's just another buzzword. Maribel, do you have a thought on this? >> Well, the easy answer would be to say it's just a buzzword. And then we could just kill the conversation and be done with it. But I think the term, it's more than that, right? The term actually isn't new. You can go back to at least 2016 and find references to supercloud in Cornell University or assist in other documents. So, having said this, I think we've been talking about Supercloud for a while, so I assume it's more than just a fancy buzzword. But I think it really speaks to that undeniable trend of moving towards an abstraction layer to deal with the chaos of what we consider managing multiple public and private clouds today, right? So one definition of the technology platform speaks to a set of services that allows companies to build and run that technology smoothly without worrying about the underlying infrastructure, which really gets back to something that Bob said. And some of the question is where that lives. And you could call that an abstraction layer. You could call it cross-cloud services, hybrid cloud management. So I see momentum there, like legitimate momentum with enterprise IT buyers that are trying to deal with the fact that they have multiple clouds now. So where I think we're moving is trying to define what are the specific attributes and frameworks of that that would make it so that it could be consistent across clouds. What is that layer? And maybe that's what the supercloud is. But one of the things I struggle with with supercloud is. What are we really trying to do here? Are we trying to create differentiated services in the supercloud layer? Is a supercloud just another variant of what AWS, GCP, or others do? You spoken to Walmart about its cloud native platform, and that's an example of somebody deciding to do it themselves because they need to deal with this today and not wait for some big standards thing to happen. So whatever it is, I do think it's something. I think we're trying to maybe create an architecture out of it would be a better way of saying it so that it does get to those set of principles, but it also needs to be edge aware. I think whenever we talk about supercloud, we're always talking about like the big centralized cloud. And I think we need to think about all the distributed clouds that we're looking at in edge as well. So that might be one of the ways that supercloud evolves. >> So thank you, Maribel. Keith, Brian Gracely, Gracely's law, things kind of repeat themselves. We've seen it all before. And so what Muglia brought to the forefront is this idea of a platform where the platform provider is really responsible for the architecture. Of course, the drawback is then you get a a bunch of stove pipes architectures. But practically speaking, that's kind of the way the industry has always evolved, right? >> So if we look at this from the practitioner's perspective and we talk about platforms, traditionally vendors have provided the platforms for us, whether it's distribution of lineage managed by or provided by Red Hat, Windows, servers, .NET, databases, Oracle. We think of those as platforms, things that are fundamental we can build on top. Supercloud isn't today that. It is a framework or idea, kind of a visionary goal to get to a point that we can have a platform or a framework. But what we're seeing repeated throughout the industry in customers, whether it's the Walmarts that's kind of supersized the idea of supercloud, or if it's regular end user organizations that are coming out with platform groups, groups who normalize cloud native infrastructure, AWS multi-cloud, VMware resources to look like one thing internally to their developers. We're seeing this trend that there's a desire for a platform that provides the capabilities of a supercloud. >> Thank you for that. Sanjeev, we often use Snowflake as a supercloud example, and now would presumably would be a platform with an architecture that's determined by the vendor. Maybe Databricks is pushing for a more open architecture, maybe more of that nirvana that we were talking about before to solve for supercloud. But regardless, the practitioner discussions show. At least currently, there's not a lot of cross-cloud data sharing. I think it could be a killer use case, egress charges or a barrier. But how do you see it? Will that change? Will we hide that underlying complexity and start sharing data across cloud? Is that something that you think Snowflake or others will be able to achieve? >> So I think we are already starting to see some of that happen. Snowflake is definitely one example that gets cited a lot. But even we don't talk about MongoDB in this like, but you could have a MongoDB cluster, for instance, with nodes sitting in different cloud providers. So there are companies that are starting to do it. The advantage that these companies have, let's take Snowflake as an example, it's a centralized proprietary platform. And they are building the capabilities that are needed for supercloud. So they're building things like you can push down your data transformations. They have the entire security and privacy suite. Data ops, they're adding those capabilities. And if I'm not mistaken, it'll be very soon, we will see them offer data observability. So it's all works great as long as you are in one platform. And if you want resilience, then Snowflake, Supercloud, great example. But if your primary goal is to choose the most cost-effective service irrespective of which cloud it sits in, then things start falling sideways. For example, I may be a very big Snowflake user. And I like Snowflake's resilience. I can move from one cloud to another cloud. Snowflake does it for me. But what if I want to train a very large model? Maybe Databricks is a better platform for that. So how do I do move my workload from one platform to another platform? That tooling does not exist. So we need server hybrid, cross-cloud, data ops platform. Walmart has done a great job, but they built it by themselves. Not every company is Walmart. Like Maribel and Keith said, we need standards, we need reference architectures, we need some sort of a cost control. I was just reading recently, Accenture has been public about their AWS bill. Every time they get the bill is tens of millions of lines, tens of millions 'cause there are over thousand teams using AWS. If we have not been able to corral a usage of a single cloud, now we're talking about supercloud, we've got multiple clouds, and hybrid, on-prem, and edge. So till we've got some cross-platform tooling in place, I think this will still take quite some time for it to take shape. >> It's interesting. Maribel, Walmart would tell you that their on-prem infrastructure is cheaper to run than the stuff in the cloud. but at the same time, they want the flexibility and the resiliency of their three-legged stool model. So the point as Sanjeev was making about hybrid. It's an interesting balance, isn't it, between getting your lowest cost and at the same time having best of breed and scale? >> It's basically what you're trying to optimize for, as you said, right? And by the way, to the earlier point, not everybody is at Walmart's scale, so it's not actually cheaper for everybody to have the purchasing power to make the cloud cheaper to have it on-prem. But I think what you see almost every company, large or small, moving towards is this concept of like, where do I find the agility? And is the agility in building the infrastructure for me? And typically, the thing that gives you outside advantage as an organization is not how you constructed your cloud computing infrastructure. It might be how you structured your data analytics as an example, which cloud is related to that. But how do you marry those two things? And getting back to sort of Sanjeev's point. We're in a real struggle now where one hand we want to have best of breed services and on the other hand we want it to be really easy to manage, secure, do data governance. And those two things are really at odds with each other right now. So if you want all the knobs and switches of a service like geospatial analytics and big query, you're going to have to use Google tools, right? Whereas if you want visibility across all the clouds for your application of state and understand the security and governance of that, you're kind of looking for something that's more cross-cloud tooling at that point. But whenever you talk to somebody about cross-cloud tooling, they look at you like that's not really possible. So it's a very interesting time in the market. Now, we're kind of layering this concept of supercloud on it. And some people think supercloud's about basically multi-cloud tooling, and some people think it's about a whole new architectural stack. So we're just not there yet. But it's not all about cost. I mean, cloud has not been about cost for a very, very long time. Cloud has been about how do you really make the most of your data. And this gets back to cross-cloud services like Snowflake. Why did they even exist? They existed because we had data everywhere, but we need to treat data as a unified object so that we can analyze it and get insight from it. And so that's where some of the benefit of these cross-cloud services are moving today. Still a long way to go, though, Dave. >> Keith, I reached out to my friends at ETR given the macro headwinds, And you're right, Maribel, cloud hasn't really been about just about cost savings. But I reached out to the ETR, guys, what's your data show in terms of how customers are dealing with the economic headwinds? And they said, by far, their number one strategy to cut cost is consolidating redundant vendors. And a distant second, but still notable was optimizing cloud costs. Maybe using reserve instances, or using more volume buying. Nowhere in there. And I asked them to, "Could you go look and see if you can find it?" Do we see repatriation? And you hear this a lot. You hear people whispering as analysts, "You better look into that repatriation trend." It's pretty big. You can't find it. But some of the Walmarts in the world, maybe even not repatriating, but they maybe have better cost structure on-prem. Keith, what are you seeing from the practitioners that you talk to in terms of how they're dealing with these headwinds? >> Yeah, I just got into a conversation about this just this morning with (indistinct) who is an analyst over at GigaHome. He's reading the same headlines. Repatriation is happening at large scale. I think this is kind of, we have these quiet terms now. We have quiet quitting, we have quiet hiring. I think we have quiet repatriation. Most people haven't done away with their data centers. They're still there. Whether they're completely on-premises data centers, and they own assets, or they're partnerships with QTX, Equinix, et cetera, they have these private cloud resources. What I'm seeing practically is a rebalancing of workloads. Do I really need to pay AWS for this instance of SAP that's on 24 hours a day versus just having it on-prem, moving it back to my data center? I've talked to quite a few customers who were early on to moving their static SAP workloads onto the public cloud, and they simply moved them back. Surprising, I was at VMware Explore. And we can talk about this a little bit later on. But our customers, net new, not a lot that were born in the cloud. And they get to this point where their workloads are static. And they look at something like a Kubernetes, or a OpenShift, or VMware Tanzu. And they ask the question, "Do I need the scalability of cloud?" I might consider being a net new VMware customer to deliver this base capability. So are we seeing repatriation as the number one reason? No, I think internal IT operations are just naturally come to this realization. Hey, I have these resources on premises. The private cloud technologies have moved far along enough that I can just simply move this workload back. I'm not calling it repatriation, I'm calling it rightsizing for the operating model that I have. >> Makes sense. Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> If I missed something, Dave, why we are on this topic of repatriation. I'm actually surprised that we are talking about repatriation as a very big thing. I think repatriation is happening, no doubt, but it's such a small percentage of cloud migration that to me it's a rounding error in my opinion. I think there's a bigger problem. The problem is that people don't know where the cost is. If they knew where the cost was being wasted in the cloud, they could do something about it. But if you don't know, then the easy answer is cloud costs a lot and moving it back to on-premises. I mean, take like Capital One as an example. They got rid of all the data centers. Where are they going to repatriate to? They're all in the cloud at this point. So I think my point is that data observability is one of the places that has seen a lot of traction is because of cost. Data observability, when it first came into existence, it was all about data quality. Then it was all about data pipeline reliability. And now, the number one killer use case is FinOps. >> Maribel, you had a comment? >> Yeah, I'm kind of in violent agreement with both Sanjeev and Keith. So what are we seeing here? So the first thing that we see is that many people wildly overspent in the big public cloud. They had stranded cloud credits, so to speak. The second thing is, some of them still had infrastructure that was useful. So why not use it if you find the right workloads to what Keith was talking about, if they were more static workloads, if it was already there? So there is a balancing that's going on. And then I think fundamentally, from a trend standpoint, these things aren't binary. Everybody, for a while, everything was going to go to the public cloud and then people are like, "Oh, it's kind of expensive." Then they're like, "Oh no, they're going to bring it all on-prem 'cause it's really expensive." And it's like, "Well, that doesn't necessarily get me some of the new features and functionalities I might want for some of my new workloads." So I'm going to put the workloads that have a certain set of characteristics that require cloud in the cloud. And if I have enough capability on-prem and enough IT resources to manage certain things on site, then I'm going to do that there 'cause that's a more cost-effective thing for me to do. It's not binary. That's why we went to hybrid. And then we went to multi just to describe the fact that people added multiple public clouds. And now we're talking about super, right? So I don't look at it as a one-size-fits-all for any of this. >> A a number of practitioners leading up to Supercloud2 have told us that they're solving their cloud complexity by going in monocloud. So they're putting on the blinders. Even though across the organization, there's other groups using other clouds. You're like, "In my group, we use AWS, or my group, we use Azure. And those guys over there, they use Google. We just kind of keep it separate." Are you guys hearing this in your view? Is that risky? Are they missing out on some potential to tap best of breed? What do you guys think about that? >> Everybody thinks they're monocloud. Is anybody really monocloud? It's like a group is monocloud, right? >> Right. >> This genie is out of the bottle. We're not putting the genie back in the bottle. You might think your monocloud and you go like three doors down and figure out the guy or gal is on a fundamentally different cloud, running some analytics workload that you didn't know about. So, to Sanjeev's earlier point, they don't even know where their cloud spend is. So I think the concept of monocloud, how that's actually really realized by practitioners is primary and then secondary sources. So they have a primary cloud that they run most of their stuff on, and that they try to optimize. And we still have forked workloads. Somebody decides, "Okay, this SAP runs really well on this, or these analytics workloads run really well on that cloud." And maybe that's how they parse it. But if you really looked at it, there's very few companies, if you really peaked under the hood and did an analysis that you could find an actual monocloud structure. They just want to pull it back in and make it more manageable. And I respect that. You want to do what you can to try to streamline the complexity of that. >> Yeah, we're- >> Sorry, go ahead, Keith. >> Yeah, we're doing this thing where we review AWS service every day. Just in your inbox, learn about a new AWS service cursory. There's 238 AWS products just on the AWS cloud itself. Some of them are redundant, but you get the idea. So the concept of monocloud, I'm in filing agreement with Maribel on this that, yes, a group might say I want a primary cloud. And that primary cloud may be the AWS. But have you tried the licensed Oracle database on AWS? It is really tempting to license Oracle on Oracle Cloud, Microsoft on Microsoft. And I can't get RDS anywhere but Amazon. So while I'm driven to desire the simplicity, the reality is whether be it M&A, licensing, data sovereignty. I am forced into a multi-cloud management style. But I do agree most people kind of do this one, this primary cloud, secondary cloud. And I guarantee you're going to have a third cloud or a fourth cloud whether you want to or not via shadow IT, latency, technical reasons, et cetera. >> Thank you. Sanjeev, you had a comment? >> Yeah, so I just wanted to mention, as an organization, I'm complete agreement, no organization is monocloud, at least if it's a large organization. Large organizations use all kinds of combinations of cloud providers. But when you talk about a single workload, that's where the program arises. As Keith said, the 238 services in AWS. How in the world am I going to be an expert in AWS, but then say let me bring GCP or Azure into a single workload? And that's where I think we probably will still see monocloud as being predominant because the team has developed its expertise on a particular cloud provider, and they just don't have the time of the day to go learn yet another stack. However, there are some interesting things that are happening. For example, if you look at a multi-cloud example where Oracle and Microsoft Azure have that interconnect, so that's a beautiful thing that they've done because now in the newest iteration, it's literally a few clicks. And then behind the scene, your .NET application and your Oracle database in OCI will be configured, the identities in active directory are federated. And you can just start using a database in one cloud, which is OCI, and an application, your .NET in Azure. So till we see this kind of a solution coming out of the providers, I think it's is unrealistic to expect the end users to be able to figure out multiple clouds. >> Well, I have to share with you. I can't remember if he said this on camera or if it was off camera so I'll hold off. I won't tell you who it is, but this individual was sort of complaining a little bit saying, "With AWS, I can take their best AI tools like SageMaker and I can run them on my Snowflake." He said, "I can't do that in Google. Google forces me to go to BigQuery if I want their excellent AI tools." So he was sort of pushing, kind of tweaking a little bit. Some of the vendor talked that, "Oh yeah, we're so customer-focused." Not to pick on Google, but I mean everybody will say that. And then you say, "If you're so customer-focused, why wouldn't you do a ABC?" So it's going to be interesting to see who leads that integration and how broadly it's applied. But I digress. Keith, at our first supercloud event, that was on August 9th. And it was only a few months after Broadcom announced the VMware acquisition. A lot of people, myself included said, "All right, cuts are coming." Generally, Tanzu is probably going to be under the radar, but it's Supercloud 22 and presumably VMware Explore, the company really... Well, certainly the US touted its Tanzu capabilities. I wasn't at VMware Explore Europe, but I bet you heard similar things. Hawk Tan has been blogging and very vocal about cross-cloud services and multi-cloud, which doesn't happen without Tanzu. So what did you hear, Keith, in Europe? What's your latest thinking on VMware's prospects in cross-cloud services/supercloud? >> So I think our friend and Cube, along host still be even more offended at this statement than he was when I sat in the Cube. This was maybe five years ago. There's no company better suited to help industries or companies, cross-cloud chasm than VMware. That's not a compliment. That's a reality of the industry. This is a very difficult, almost intractable problem. What I heard that VMware Europe were customers serious about this problem, even more so than the US data sovereignty is a real problem in the EU. Try being a company in Switzerland and having the Swiss data solvency issues. And there's no local cloud presence there large enough to accommodate your data needs. They had very serious questions about this. I talked to open source project leaders. Open source project leaders were asking me, why should I use the public cloud to host Kubernetes-based workloads, my projects that are building around Kubernetes, and the CNCF infrastructure? Why should I use AWS, Google, or even Azure to host these projects when that's undifferentiated? I know how to run Kubernetes, so why not run it on-premises? I don't want to deal with the hardware problems. So again, really great questions. And then there was always the specter of the problem, I think, we all had with the acquisition of VMware by Broadcom potentially. 4.5 billion in increased profitability in three years is a unbelievable amount of money when you look at the size of the problem. So a lot of the conversation in Europe was about industry at large. How do we do what regulators are asking us to do in a practical way from a true technology sense? Is VMware cross-cloud great? >> Yeah. So, VMware, obviously, to your point. OpenStack is another way of it. Actually, OpenStack, uptake is still alive and well, especially in those regions where there may not be a public cloud, or there's public policy dictating that. Walmart's using OpenStack. As you know in IT, some things never die. Question for Sanjeev. And it relates to this new breed of data apps. And Bob Muglia and Tristan Handy from DBT Labs who are participating in this program really got us thinking about this. You got data that resides in different clouds, it maybe even on-prem. And the machine polls data from different systems. No humans involved, e-commerce, ERP, et cetera. It creates a plan, outcomes. No human involvement. Today, you're on a CRM system, you're inputting, you're doing forms, you're, you're automating processes. We're talking about a new breed of apps. What are your thoughts on this? Is it real? Is it just way off in the distance? How does machine intelligence fit in? And how does supercloud fit? >> So great point. In fact, the data apps that you're talking about, I call them data products. Data products first came into limelight in the last couple of years when Jamal Duggan started talking about data mesh. I am taking data products out of the data mesh concept because data mesh, whether data mesh happens or not is analogous to data products. Data products, basically, are taking a product management view of bringing data from different sources based on what the consumer needs. We were talking earlier today about maybe it's my vacation rentals, or it may be a retail data product, it may be an investment data product. So it's a pre-packaged extraction of data from different sources. But now I have a product that has a whole lifecycle. I can version it. I have new features that get added. And it's a very business data consumer centric. It uses machine learning. For instance, I may be able to tell whether this data product has stale data. Who is using that data? Based on the usage of the data, I may have a new data products that get allocated. I may even have the ability to take existing data products, mash them up into something that I need. So if I'm going to have that kind of power to create a data product, then having a common substrate underneath, it can be very useful. And that could be supercloud where I am making API calls. I don't care where the ERP, the CRM, the survey data, the pricing engine where they sit. For me, there's a logical abstraction. And then I'm building my data product on top of that. So I see a new breed of data products coming out. To answer your question, how early we are or is this even possible? My prediction is that in 2023, we will start seeing more of data products. And then it'll take maybe two to three years for data products to become mainstream. But it's starting this year. >> A subprime mortgages were a data product, definitely were humans involved. All right, let's talk about some of the supercloud, multi-cloud players and what their future looks like. You can kind of pick your favorites. VMware, Snowflake, Databricks, Red Hat, Cisco, Dell, HP, Hashi, IBM, CloudFlare. There's many others. cohesive rubric. Keith, I wanted to start with CloudFlare because they actually use the term supercloud. and just simplifying what they said. They look at it as taking serverless to the max. You write your code and then you can deploy it in seconds worldwide, of course, across the CloudFlare infrastructure. You don't have to spin up containers, you don't go to provision instances. CloudFlare worries about all that infrastructure. What are your thoughts on CloudFlare this approach and their chances to disrupt the current cloud landscape? >> As Larry Ellison said famously once before, the network is the computer, right? I thought that was Scott McNeley. >> It wasn't Scott McNeley. I knew it was on Oracle Align. >> Oracle owns that now, owns that line. >> By purpose or acquisition. >> They should have just called it cloud. >> Yeah, they should have just called it cloud. >> Easier. >> Get ahead. >> But if you think about the CloudFlare capability, CloudFlare in its own right is becoming a decent sized cloud provider. If you have compute out at the edge, when we talk about edge in the sense of CloudFlare and points of presence, literally across the globe, you have all of this excess computer, what do you do with it? First offering, let's disrupt data in the cloud. We can't start the conversation talking about data. When they say we're going to give you object-oriented or object storage in the cloud without egress charges, that's disruptive. That we can start to think about supercloud capability of having compute EC2 run in AWS, pushing and pulling data from CloudFlare. And now, I've disrupted this roach motel data structure, and that I'm freely giving away bandwidth, basically. Well, the next layer is not that much more difficult. And I think part of CloudFlare's serverless approach or supercloud approaches so that they don't have to commit to a certain type of compute. It is advantageous. It is a feature for me to be able to go to EC2 and pick a memory heavy model, or a compute heavy model, or a network heavy model, CloudFlare is taken away those knobs. and I'm just giving code and allowing that to run. CloudFlare has a massive network. If I can put the code closest using the CloudFlare workers, if I can put that code closest to where the data is at or residing, super compelling observation. The question is, does it scale? I don't get the 238 services. While Server List is great, I have to know what I'm going to build. I don't have a Cognito, or RDS, or all these other services that make AWS, GCP, and Azure appealing from a builder's perspective. So it is a very interesting nascent start. It's great because now they can hide compute. If they don't have the capacity, they can outsource that maybe at a cost to one of the other cloud providers, but kind of hiding the compute behind the surplus architecture is a really unique approach. >> Yeah. And they're dipping their toe in the water. And they've announced an object store and a database platform and more to come. We got to wrap. So I wonder, Sanjeev and Maribel, if you could maybe pick some of your favorites from a competitive standpoint. Sanjeev, I felt like just watching Snowflake, I said, okay, in my opinion, they had the right strategy, which was to run on all the clouds, and then try to create that abstraction layer and data sharing across clouds. Even though, let's face it, most of it might be happening across regions if it's happening, but certainly outside of an individual account. But I felt like just observing them that anybody who's traditional on-prem player moving into the clouds or anybody who's a cloud native, it just makes total sense to write to the various clouds. And to the extent that you can simplify that for users, it seems to be a logical strategy. Maybe as I said before, what multi-cloud should have been. But are there companies that you're watching that you think are ahead in the game , or ones that you think are a good model for the future? >> Yes, Snowflake, definitely. In fact, one of the things we have not touched upon very much, and Keith mentioned a little bit, was data sovereignty. Data residency rules can require that certain data should be written into certain region of a certain cloud. And if my cloud provider can abstract that or my database provider, then that's perfect for me. So right now, I see Snowflake is way ahead of this pack. I would not put MongoDB too far behind. They don't really talk about this thing. They are in a different space, but now they have a lakehouse, and they've got all of these other SQL access and new capabilities that they're announcing. So I think they would be quite good with that. Oracle is always a dark forest. Oracle seems to have revived its Cloud Mojo to some extent. And it's doing some interesting stuff. Databricks is the other one. I have not seen Databricks. They've been very focused on lakehouse, unity, data catalog, and some of those pieces. But they would be the obvious challenger. And if they come into this space of supercloud, then they may bring some open source technologies that others can rely on like Delta Lake as a table format. >> Yeah. One of these infrastructure players, Dell, HPE, Cisco, even IBM. I mean, I would be making my infrastructure as programmable and cloud friendly as possible. That seems like table stakes. But Maribel, any companies that stand out to you that we should be paying attention to? >> Well, we already mentioned a bunch of them, so maybe I'll go a slightly different route. I'm watching two companies pretty closely to see what kind of traction they get in their established companies. One we already talked about, which is VMware. And the thing that's interesting about VMware is they're everywhere. And they also have the benefit of having a foot in both camps. If you want to do it the old way, the way you've always done it with VMware, they got all that going on. If you want to try to do a more cross-cloud, multi-cloud native style thing, they're really trying to build tools for that. So I think they have really good access to buyers. And that's one of the reasons why I'm interested in them to see how they progress. The other thing, I think, could be a sleeping horse oddly enough is Google Cloud. They've spent a lot of work and time on Anthos. They really need to create a certain set of differentiators. Well, it's not necessarily in their best interest to be the best multi-cloud player. If they decide that they want to differentiate on a different layer of the stack, let's say they want to be like the person that is really transformative, they talk about transformation cloud with analytics workloads, then maybe they do spend a good deal of time trying to help people abstract all of the other underlying infrastructure and make sure that they get the sexiest, most meaningful workloads into their cloud. So those are two people that you might not have expected me to go with, but I think it's interesting to see not just on the things that might be considered, either startups or more established independent companies, but how some of the traditional providers are trying to reinvent themselves as well. >> I'm glad you brought that up because if you think about what Google's done with Kubernetes. I mean, would Google even be relevant in the cloud without Kubernetes? I could argue both sides of that. But it was quite a gift to the industry. And there's a motivation there to do something unique and different from maybe the other cloud providers. And I'd throw in Red Hat as well. They're obviously a key player and Kubernetes. And Hashi Corp seems to be becoming the standard for application deployment, and terraform, or cross-clouds, and there are many, many others. I know we're leaving lots out, but we're out of time. Folks, I got to thank you so much for your insights and your participation in Supercloud2. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> This is Dave Vellante for John Furrier and the entire Cube community. Keep it right there for more content from Supercloud2.

(upbeat music) >> Hello, everybody. This is Dave Vellante. Welcome back to Supercloud2, where we're exploring the intersection of data analytics and the future of cloud. In this segment, we're going to look at how the Supercloud will support a new class of applications, not just work that runs on multiple clouds, but rather a new breed of apps that can orchestrate things in the real world. Think Uber for many types of businesses. These applications, they're not about codifying forms or business processes. They're about orchestrating people, places, and things in a business ecosystem. And I'm pleased to welcome my colleague and friend, George Gilbert, former Gartner Analyst, Wiki Bond market analyst, former equities analyst as my co-host. And we're thrilled to have Tristan Handy, who's the founder and CEO of DBT Labs and Bob Muglia, who's the former President of Microsoft's Enterprise business and former CEO of Snowflake. Welcome all, gentlemen. Thank you for coming on the program. >> Good to be here. >> Thanks for having us. >> Hey, look, I'm going to start actually with the SuperCloud because both Tristan and Bob, you've read the definition. Thank you for doing that. And Bob, you have some really good input, some thoughts on maybe some of the drawbacks and how we can advance this. So what are your thoughts in reading that definition around SuperCloud? >> Well, I thought first of all that you did a very good job of laying out all of the characteristics of it and helping to define it overall. But I do think it can be tightened a bit, and I think it's helpful to do it in as short a way as possible. And so in the last day I've spent a little time thinking about how to take it and write a crisp definition. And here's my go at it. This is one day old, so gimme a break if it's going to change. And of course we have to follow the industry, and so that, and whatever the industry decides, but let's give this a try. So in the way I think you're defining it, what I would say is a SuperCloud is a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. >> Boom. Nice. Okay, great. I'm going to go back and read the script on that one and tighten that up a bit. Thank you for spending the time thinking about that. Tristan, would you add anything to that or what are your thoughts on the whole SuperCloud concept? >> So as I read through this, I fully realize that we need a word for this thing because I have experienced the inability to talk about it as well. But for many of us who have been living in the Confluence, Snowflake, you know, this world of like new infrastructure, this seems fairly uncontroversial. Like I read through this, and I'm just like, yeah, this is like the world I've been living in for years now. And I noticed that you called out Snowflake for being an example of this, but I think that there are like many folks, myself included, for whom this world like fully exists today. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair, I dunno if it's criticism, but people observe, well, what's the big deal here? It's just kind of what we're living in today. It reminds me of, you know, Tim Burns Lee saying, well, this is what the internet was supposed to be. It was supposed to be Web 2.0, so maybe this is what multi-cloud was supposed to be. Let's turn our attention to apps. Bob first and then go to Tristan. Bob, what are data apps to you? When people talk about data products, is that what they mean? Are we talking about something more, different? What are data apps to you? >> Well, to understand data apps, it's useful to contrast them to something, and I just use the simple term people apps. I know that's a little bit awkward, but it's clear. And almost everything we work with, almost every application that we're familiar with, be it email or Salesforce or any consumer app, those are applications that are targeted at responding to people. You know, in contrast, a data application reacts to changes in data and uses some set of analytic services to autonomously take action. So where applications that we're familiar with respond to people, data apps respond to changes in data. And they both do something, but they do it for different reasons. >> Got it. You know, George, you and I were talking about, you know, it comes back to SuperCloud, broad definition, narrow definition. Tristan, how do you see it? Do you see it the same way? Do you have a different take on data apps? >> Oh, geez. This is like a conversation that I don't know has an end. It's like been, I write a substack, and there's like this little community of people who all write substack. We argue with each other about these kinds of things. Like, you know, as many different takes on this question as you can find, but the way that I think about it is that data products are atomic units of functionality that are fundamentally data driven in nature. So a data product can be as simple as an interactive dashboard that is like actually had design thinking put into it and serves a particular user group and has like actually gone through kind of a product development life cycle. And then a data app or data application is a kind of cohesive end-to-end experience that often encompasses like many different data products. So from my perspective there, this is very, very related to the way that these things are produced, the kinds of experiences that they're provided, that like data innovates every product that we've been building in, you know, software engineering for, you know, as long as there have been computers. >> You know, Jamak Dagani oftentimes uses the, you know, she doesn't name Spotify, but I think it's Spotify as that kind of example she uses. But I wonder if we can maybe try to take some examples. If you take, like George, if you take a CRM system today, you're inputting leads, you got opportunities, it's driven by humans, they're really inputting the data, and then you got this system that kind of orchestrates the business process, like runs a forecast. But in this data driven future, are we talking about the app itself pulling data in and automatically looking at data from the transaction systems, the call center, the supply chain and then actually building a plan? George, is that how you see it? >> I go back to the example of Uber, may not be the most sophisticated data app that we build now, but it was like one of the first where you do have users interacting with their devices as riders trying to call a car or driver. But the app then looks at the location of all the drivers in proximity, and it matches a driver to a rider. It calculates an ETA to the rider. It calculates an ETA then to the destination, and it calculates a price. Those are all activities that are done sort of autonomously that don't require a human to type something into a form. The application is using changes in data to calculate an analytic product and then to operationalize that, to assign the driver to, you know, calculate a price. Those are, that's an example of what I would think of as a data app. And my question then I guess for Tristan is if we don't have all the pieces in place for sort of mainstream companies to build those sorts of apps easily yet, like how would we get started? What's the role of a semantic layer in making that easier for mainstream companies to build? And how do we get started, you know, say with metrics? How does that, how does that take us down that path? >> So what we've seen in the past, I dunno, decade or so, is that one of the most successful business models in infrastructure is taking hard things and rolling 'em up behind APIs. You take messaging, you take payments, and you all of a sudden increase the capability of kind of your median application developer. And you say, you know, previously you were spending all your time being focused on how do you accept credit cards, how do you send SMS payments, and now you can focus on your business logic, and just create the thing. One of, interestingly, one of the things that we still don't know how to API-ify is concepts that live inside of your data warehouse, inside of your data lake. These are core concepts that, you know, you would imagine that the business would be able to create applications around very easily, but in fact that's not the case. It's actually quite challenging to, and involves a lot of data engineering pipeline and all this work to make these available. And so if you really want to make it very easy to create some of these data experiences for users, you need to have an ability to describe these metrics and then to turn them into APIs to make them accessible to application developers who have literally no idea how they're calculated behind the scenes, and they don't need to. >> So how rich can that API layer grow if you start with metric definitions that you've defined? And DBT has, you know, the metric, the dimensions, the time grain, things like that, that's a well scoped sort of API that people can work within. How much can you extend that to say non-calculated business rules or governance information like data reliability rules, things like that, or even, you know, features for an AIML feature store. In other words, it starts, you started pragmatically, but how far can you grow? >> Bob is waiting with bated breath to answer this question. I'm, just really quickly, I think that we as a company and DBT as a product tend to be very pragmatic. We try to release the simplest possible version of a thing, get it out there, and see if people use it. But the idea that, the concept of a metric is really just a first landing pad. The really, there is a physical manifestation of the data and then there's a logical manifestation of the data. And what we're trying to do here is make it very easy to access the logical manifestation of the data, and metric is a way to look at that. Maybe an entity, a customer, a user is another way to look at that. And I'm sure that there will be more kind of logical structures as well. >> So, Bob, chime in on this. You know, what's your thoughts on the right architecture behind this, and how do we get there? >> Yeah, well first of all, I think one of the ways we get there is by what companies like DBT Labs and Tristan is doing, which is incrementally taking and building on the modern data stack and extending that to add a semantic layer that describes the data. Now the way I tend to think about this is a fairly major shift in the way we think about writing applications, which is today a code first approach to moving to a world that is model driven. And I think that's what the big change will be is that where today we think about data, we think about writing code, and we use that to produce APIs as Tristan said, which encapsulates those things together in some form of services that are useful for organizations. And that idea of that encapsulation is never going to go away. It's very, that concept of an API is incredibly useful and will exist well into the future. But what I think will happen is that in the next 10 years, we're going to move to a world where organizations are defining models first of their data, but then ultimately of their business process, their entire business process. Now the concept of a model driven world is a very old concept. I mean, I first started thinking about this and playing around with some early model driven tools, probably before Tristan was born in the early 1980s. And those tools didn't work because the semantics associated with executing the model were too complex to be written in anything other than a procedural language. We're now reaching a time where that is changing, and you see it everywhere. You see it first of all in the world of machine learning and machine learning models, which are taking over more and more of what applications are doing. And I think that's an incredibly important step. And learned models are an important part of what people will do. But if you look at the world today, I will claim that we've always been modeling. Modeling has existed in computers since there have been integrated circuits and any form of computers. But what we do is what I would call implicit modeling, which means that it's the model is written on a whiteboard. It's in a bunch of Slack messages. It's on a set of napkins in conversations that happen and during Zoom. That's where the model gets defined today. It's implicit. There is one in the system. It is hard coded inside application logic that exists across many applications with humans being the glue that connects those models together. And really there is no central place you can go to understand the full attributes of the business, all of the business rules, all of the business logic, the business data. That's going to change in the next 10 years. And we'll start to have a world where we can define models about what we're doing. Now in the short run, the most important models to build are data models and to describe all of the attributes of the data and their relationships. And that's work that DBT Labs is doing. A number of other companies are doing that. We're taking steps along that way with catalogs. People are trying to build more complete ontologies associated with that. The underlying infrastructure is still super, super nascent. But what I think we'll see is this infrastructure that exists today that's building learned models in the form of machine learning programs. You know, some of these incredible machine learning programs in foundation models like GPT and DALL-E and all of the things that are happening in these global scale models, but also all of that needs to get applied to the domains that are appropriate for a business. And I think we'll see the infrastructure developing for that, that can take this concept of learned models and put it together with more explicitly defined models. And this is where the concept of knowledge graphs come in and then the technology that underlies that to actually implement and execute that, which I believe are relational knowledge graphs. >> Oh, oh wow. There's a lot to unpack there. So let me ask the Colombo question, Tristan, we've been making fun of your youth. We're just, we're just jealous. Colombo, I'll explain it offline maybe. >> I watch Colombo. >> Okay. All right, good. So but today if you think about the application stack and the data stack, which is largely an analytics pipeline. They're separate. Do they, those worlds, do they have to come together in order to achieve Bob's vision? When I talk to practitioners about that, they're like, well, I don't want to complexify the application stack cause the data stack today is so, you know, hard to manage. But but do those worlds have to come together? And you know, through that model, I guess abstraction or translation that Bob was just describing, how do you guys think about that? Who wants to take that? >> I think it's inevitable that data and AI are going to become closer together? I think that the infrastructure there has been moving in that direction for a long time. Whether you want to use the Lakehouse portmanteau or not. There's also, there's a next generation of data tech that is still in the like early stage of being developed. There's a company that I love that is essentially Cross Cloud Lambda, and it's just a wonderful abstraction for computing. So I think that, you know, people have been predicting that these worlds are going to come together for awhile. A16Z wrote a great post on this back in I think 2020, predicting this, and I've been predicting this since since 2020. But what's not clear is the timeline, but I think that this is still just as inevitable as it's been. >> Who's that that does Cross Cloud? >> Let me follow up on. >> Who's that, Tristan, that does Cross Cloud Lambda? Can you name names? >> Oh, they're called Modal Labs. >> Modal Labs, yeah, of course. All right, go ahead, George. >> Let me ask about this vision of trying to put the semantics or the code that represents the business with the data. It gets us to a world that's sort of more data centric, where data's not locked inside or behind the APIs of different applications so that we don't have silos. But at the same time, Bob, I've heard you talk about building the semantics gradually on top of, into a knowledge graph that maybe grows out of a data catalog. And the vision of getting to that point, essentially the enterprise's metadata and then the semantics you're going to add onto it are really stored in something that's separate from the underlying operational and analytic data. So at the same time then why couldn't we gradually build semantics beyond the metric definitions that DBT has today? In other words, you build more and more of the semantics in some layer that DBT defines and that sits above the data management layer, but any requests for data have to go through the DBT layer. Is that a workable alternative? Or where, what type of limitations would you face? >> Well, I think that it is the way the world will evolve is to start with the modern data stack and, you know, which is operational applications going through a data pipeline into some form of data lake, data warehouse, the Lakehouse, whatever you want to call it. And then, you know, this wide variety of analytics services that are built together. To the point that Tristan made about machine learning and data coming together, you see that in every major data cloud provider. Snowflake certainly now supports Python and Java. Databricks is of course building their data warehouse. Certainly Google, Microsoft and Amazon are doing very, very similar things in terms of building complete solutions that bring together an analytics stack that typically supports languages like Python together with the data stack and the data warehouse. I mean, all of those things are going to evolve, and they're not going to go away because that infrastructure is relatively new. It's just being deployed by companies, and it solves the problem of working with petabytes of data if you need to work with petabytes of data, and nothing will do that for a long time. What's missing is a layer that understands and can model the semantics of all of this. And if you need to, if you want to model all, if you want to talk about all the semantics of even data, you need to think about all of the relationships. You need to think about how these things connect together. And unfortunately, there really is no platform today. None of our existing platforms are ultimately sufficient for this. It was interesting, I was just talking to a customer yesterday, you know, a large financial organization that is building out these semantic layers. They're further along than many companies are. And you know, I asked what they're building it on, and you know, it's not surprising they're using a, they're using combinations of some form of search together with, you know, textual based search together with a document oriented database. In this case it was Cosmos. And that really is kind of the state of the art right now. And yet those products were not built for this. They don't really, they can't manage the complicated relationships that are required. They can't issue the queries that are required. And so a new generation of database needs to be developed. And fortunately, you know, that is happening. The world is developing a new set of relational algorithms that will be able to work with hundreds of different relations. If you look at a SQL database like Snowflake or a big query, you know, you get tens of different joins coming together, and that query is going to take a really long time. Well, fortunately, technology is evolving, and it's possible with new join algorithms, worst case, optimal join algorithms they're called, where you can join hundreds of different relations together and run semantic queries that you simply couldn't run. Now that technology is nascent, but it's really important, and I think that will be a requirement to have this semantically reach its full potential. In the meantime, Tristan can do a lot of great things by building up on what he's got today and solve some problems that are very real. But in the long run I think we'll see a new set of databases to support these models. >> So Tristan, you got to respond to that, right? You got to, so take the example of Snowflake. We know it doesn't deal well with complex joins, but they're, they've got big aspirations. They're building an ecosystem to really solve some of these problems. Tristan, you guys are part of that ecosystem, and others, but please, your thoughts on what Bob just shared. >> Bob, I'm curious if, I would have no idea what you were talking about except that you introduced me to somebody who gave me a demo of a thing and do you not want to go there right now? >> No, I can talk about it. I mean, we can talk about it. Look, the company I've been working with is Relational AI, and they're doing this work to actually first of all work across the industry with academics and research, you know, across many, many different, over 20 different research institutions across the world to develop this new set of algorithms. They're all fully published, just like SQL, the underlying algorithms that are used by SQL databases are. If you look today, every single SQL database uses a similar set of relational algorithms underneath that. And those algorithms actually go back to system R and what IBM developed in the 1970s. We're just, there's an opportunity for us to build something new that allows you to take, for example, instead of taking data and grouping it together in tables, treat all data as individual relations, you know, a key and a set of values and then be able to perform purely relational operations on it. If you go back to what, to Codd, and what he wrote, he defined two things. He defined a relational calculus and relational algebra. And essentially SQL is a query language that is translated by the query processor into relational algebra. But however, the calculus of SQL is not even close to the full semantics of the relational mathematics. And it's possible to have systems that can do everything and that can store all of the attributes of the data model or ultimately the business model in a form that is much more natural to work with. >> So here's like my short answer to this. I think that we're dealing in different time scales. I think that there is actually a tremendous amount of work to do in the semantic layer using the kind of technology that we have on the ground today. And I think that there's, I don't know, let's say five years of like really solid work that there is to do for the entire industry, if not more. But the wonderful thing about DBT is that it's independent of what the compute substrate is beneath it. And so if we develop new platforms, new capabilities to describe semantic models in more fine grain detail, more procedural, then we're going to support that too. And so I'm excited about all of it. >> Yeah, so interpreting that short answer, you're basically saying, cause Bob was just kind of pointing to you as incremental, but you're saying, yeah, okay, we're applying it for incremental use cases today, but we can accommodate a much broader set of examples in the future. Is that correct, Tristan? >> I think you're using the word incremental as if it's not good, but I think that incremental is great. We have always been about applying incremental improvement on top of what exists today, but allowing practitioners to like use different workflows to actually make use of that technology. So yeah, yeah, we are a very incremental company. We're going to continue being that way. >> Well, I think Bob was using incremental as a pejorative. I mean, I, but to your point, a lot. >> No, I don't think so. I want to stop that. No, I don't think it's pejorative at all. I think incremental, incremental is usually the most successful path. >> Yes, of course. >> In my experience. >> We agree, we agree on that. >> Having tried many, many moonshot things in my Microsoft days, I can tell you that being incremental is a good thing. And I'm a very big believer that that's the way the world's going to go. I just think that there is a need for us to build something new and that ultimately that will be the solution. Now you can argue whether it's two years, three years, five years, or 10 years, but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen in 10 years. >> Yeah, so we all agree that incremental is less disruptive. Boom, but Tristan, you're, I think I'm inferring that you believe you have the architecture to accommodate Bob's vision, and then Bob, and I'm inferring from Bob's comments that maybe you don't think that's the case, but please. >> No, no, no. I think that, so Bob, let me put words into your mouth and you tell me if you disagree, DBT is completely useless in a world where a large scale cloud data warehouse doesn't exist. We were not able to bring the power of Python to our users until these platforms started supporting Python. Like DBT is a layer on top of large scale computing platforms. And to the extent that those platforms extend their functionality to bring more capabilities, we will also service those capabilities. >> Let me try and bridge the two. >> Yeah, yeah, so Bob, Bob, Bob, do you concur with what Tristan just said? >> Absolutely, I mean there's nothing to argue with in what Tristan just said. >> I wanted. >> And it's what he's doing. It'll continue to, I believe he'll continue to do it, and I think it's a very good thing for the industry. You know, I'm just simply saying that on top of that, I would like to provide Tristan and all of those who are following similar paths to him with a new type of database that can actually solve these problems in a much more architected way. And when I talk about Cosmos with something like Mongo or Cosmos together with Elastic, you're using Elastic as the join engine, okay. That's the purpose of it. It becomes a poor man's join engine. And I kind of go, I know there's a better answer than that. I know there is, but that's kind of where we are state of the art right now. >> George, we got to wrap it. So give us the last word here. Go ahead, George. >> Okay, I just, I think there's a way to tie together what Tristan and Bob are both talking about, and I want them to validate it, which is for five years we're going to be adding or some number of years more and more semantics to the operational and analytic data that we have, starting with metric definitions. My question is for Bob, as DBT accumulates more and more of those semantics for different enterprises, can that layer not run on top of a relational knowledge graph? And what would we lose by not having, by having the knowledge graph store sort of the joins, all the complex relationships among the data, but having the semantics in the DBT layer? >> Well, I think this, okay, I think first of all that DBT will be an environment where many of these semantics are defined. The question we're asking is how are they stored and how are they processed? And what I predict will happen is that over time, as companies like DBT begin to build more and more richness into their semantic layer, they will begin to experience challenges that customers want to run queries, they want to ask questions, they want to use this for things where the underlying infrastructure becomes an obstacle. I mean, this has happened in always in the history, right? I mean, you see major advances in computer science when the data model changes. And I think we're on the verge of a very significant change in the way data is stored and structured, or at least metadata is stored and structured. Again, I'm not saying that anytime in the next 10 years, SQL is going to go away. In fact, more SQL will be written in the future than has been written in the past. And those platforms will mature to become the engines, the slicer dicers of data. I mean that's what they are today. They're incredibly powerful at working with large amounts of data, and that infrastructure is maturing very rapidly. What is not maturing is the infrastructure to handle all of the metadata and the semantics that that requires. And that's where I say knowledge graphs are what I believe will be the solution to that. >> But Tristan, bring us home here. It sounds like, let me put pause at this, is that whatever happens in the future, we're going to leverage the vast system that has become cloud that we're talking about a supercloud, sort of where data lives irrespective of physical location. We're going to have to tap that data. It's not necessarily going to be in one place, but give us your final thoughts, please. >> 100% agree. I think that the data is going to live everywhere. It is the responsibility for both the metadata systems and the data processing engines themselves to make sure that we can join data across cloud providers, that we can join data across different physical regions and that we as practitioners are going to kind of start forgetting about details like that. And we're going to start thinking more about how we want to arrange our teams, how does the tooling that we use support our team structures? And that's when data mesh I think really starts to get very, very critical as a concept. >> Guys, great conversation. It was really awesome to have you. I can't thank you enough for spending time with us. Really appreciate it. >> Thanks a lot. >> All right. This is Dave Vellante for George Gilbert, John Furrier, and the entire Cube community. Keep it right there for more content. You're watching SuperCloud2. (upbeat music)

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

>> Announcer: TheCUBE presents Ignite22, brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >> Hey, welcome back to Vegas. Great to have you. We're pleased that you're watching theCUBE. Lisa Martin and Dave Vellante. Day two of theCUBE's coverage of Palo Alto Ignite22 from the MGM Grand. Dave, we're going to be talking about data. >> You know I love data. >> I do know you love data. >> Survey data- >> There is a great new survey that Palo Alto Networks just published yesterday, "What's next in cyber?" We're going to be digging through it with their CMO. Who better to talk about data with than a CMO that has a PhD in machine learning? We're very pleased to welcome to the program, Zeynep Ozdemir, CMO of Palo Alto Networks. Great to have you. Thank you for joining us. >> It's a pleasure to be here. >> First, I got to ask you about your PhD. Your background as a CMO is so interesting and unique. Give me a little bit of a history on that. >> Oh, absolutely, yes. Yes, I admit that I'm a little bit of an untraditional marketing leader. I spent probably the first half of my career as a software engineer and a research scientist in the area of machine learning and speech signal processing, which is very uncommon, I admit that. Honestly, it has actually helped me immensely in my current role. I mean, you know, you've spoken to Lee Klarich, I think a little while ago. We have a very tight and close partnership with product and engineering teams at Palo Alto Networks. And, you know, cybersecurity is a very complex topic. And we're at a critical juncture right now where all of these new technologies, AI, machine learning, cloud computing, are going to really transform the industry. And I think that I'm very lucky, as somebody who's very technically competent in all of those areas, to partner with the best people and the leading company right now. So, I'm very happy that my technical background is actually helping in this journey. >> Dave: Oh, wait, aren't you like a molecular biologist, or something? >> A reformed molecular...yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Whoa, okay. (group laughs) >> But >> Math guy over here. >> Yeah. You guys just, the story that I tease is... the amount of data in there is unbelievable. This has just started in August, so a few months ago. >> Zeynep: Yeah. >> Fresh data. You surveyed 1300 CXOs globally. >> Zeynep: That's right. >> Across industries and organizations are saying, you know, hybrid work and remote work became status quo like that. >> Yes. >> Couple years ago everyone shifted to multicloud and of course the cyber criminals are sophisticated, and they're motivated, and they're well funded. >> Zeynep: That's right. >> What are some of the things that you think that the survey really demonstrated that validate the direction that Palo Alto Networks is going in? >> That's right. That's right. So we do these surveys because first and foremost, we have to make sure we're aligned with our customers in terms of our product strategy and the direction. And we have to confirm and validate our very strong opinions about the future of the cybersecurity industry. So, but this time when we did this survey, we just saw some great insights, and we decided we want to share it with the broader industry because we obviously want to drive thought leadership and make sure everybody is in the same level field. Some interesting and significant results with this one. So, as you said, this was 1300 C level cybersecurity decision makers and executives across the world. So we had participants from Europe, from Japan, from Asia Pacific, Latin America, in addition to North America. So one of the most significant stats or data points that we've seen was the fact that out of everybody interviewed, 96% of participants had experienced one or more cybersecurity breaches in the past 12 months. That was more than what we expected, to be honest with you. And then 57% of them actually experienced three or more. So those stats are really worth sharing in terms of where the state of cybersecurity is. What also was personally interesting to me was 33% of them actually experienced an operational disruption as a result of a breach, which is a big number. It's one third of participants. So all of these were very interesting. We asked them more detailed questions around you know, how many...like obviously all of them are trying to respond to this situation. They're trying different technologies, different tools and it seems like they're in a point where they're almost have too many tools and technologies because, you know, when you have too many tools and technologies, there's the operational overhead of integrating them. It creates blind spots between them because those tools aren't really communicating with each other. So what we heard from the responders was that on average they were on like 32 tools, 22% was on 50 or more tools, which is crazy. But what the question we asked them was, you know, are you, are you looking to consolidate? Are you looking to go more tools or less tools? Like what are your thoughts on that? And a significant majority of them, like about 77% said they are actively trying to reduce the number of technologies that they're trying to use because they want to actually achieve better security outcomes. >> I wonder if you could comment on this. So early on in the pandemic, we have a partner, survey partner ETR, Enterprise Technology Research. And we saw a real shift of course, 'cause of hybrid work toward endpoint security, cloud security, they were rearchitecting their networks, a new focus on, you know, different thinking about network security and identity. >> Yeah. >> You play in all of those in partner for identity. >> Zeynep: Yeah. >> I almost, my question is, is was there kind of a knee jerk reaction to get point tools to plug some of those holes? >> Zeynep: Yes. >> And now they're...'cause we said at the time, this is a permanent shift in thinking. What we didn't think through it's coming to focus here at this conference is, okay, we did that, but now we created another problem. >> Zeynep: Yeah. Yeah. >> Now we're- >> Yes, yes. You're very right. I think, and it's very natural to do this, right? >> Sure. >> Every time a problem pops up, you want to fix it as quickly as possible. And you look... you survey who can help you with that. And then you kind of get going because cybersecurity is one of those areas where you can't really wait and do, you know, take time to fix those problems. So that happened a lot and it is happening. But what happened as a result of that. For example, I'll give you a data point from the actual survey that answers this very question. When we asked these executives what keeps them like up at night, like what's their biggest concern? A significant majority of them said, oh we're having difficulty with data management. And what that means is that all these tools that they've deployed, they're generating a lot of insights and data, but they're disconnected, right? So there is no one place where you can say, look at it holistically and come to conclusions very fast about how threat actors are moving in an organization. So that's a direct result of this proliferation of tools, if you will. And you're right. And it will...it's a natural thing to deploy products very quickly. But then you have to take a step back and say, how do I make this more effective? How do I bring things together, bring all my data together to be able to get to threats detect threats much faster? >> An unintended consequence of that quick fix. >> And become cyber resilient. We've been hearing a lot about cyber resiliency. >> Yes, yes. >> Recently and something that I was noting in the survey is only 25% of execs said, yeah, our cyber resilience and readiness is high. And you found that there was a lack of alignment between the boards and the executive levels. And we actually spoke with I think BJ yesterday on how are you guys and even some of your partners >> Yeah. >> How are you helping facilitate that alignment? We know security's always a board level- >> Zeynep: Yes. >> Conversation, but the lack of alignment was kind of surprising to me. >> Yeah. Well I think the good news is that I think we... cybersecurity is taking its place in board discussions more and more. Whether there's alignment or not, at least it's a topic, right? >> Yeah. That was also out of the survey that we saw. I think yes, we have a lot of, a big role to play in helping security executives communicate better with boards and c-level executives in their organizations. Because as we said, it's a very complex topic, and it has to be taken from two angles. When there's...it's a board level discussion. One, how are you reducing risk and making sure that you're resilient. Two, how do you think about return on investment and you know, what's the right level of investment and is that investment going to get us the return that we need? >> What do you think of this? So there's another interesting stat here. What keeps executives up at night? >> Mmhm. >> You mentioned difficulty of data management. Normally, the CISO response to what's your number one problem is lack of talent. >> Zeynep: Number three there, yes. Yeah. >> And it is maybe somewhat related to difficulty of data management, but maybe people have realized, you know what? I'm never going to solve this problem by throwing bodies at it. >> Yeah. >> I got to think of a better way to consolidate my data. Maybe partner with a company that can help me do that. And then the second one was scared of being left behind changes in the tech stack. So we're moving so fast to digitize. >> Zeynep: Yes. >> And security's still an afterthought. And so it's almost as though they're kind of rethinking the problems 'cause they know that they can't just solve the issue by throwing, you know, more hires at it 'cause they can't find the people. >> That is...you're absolutely spot on. The thing about cybersecurity skills gap, it's a reality. It's very real. It's a hard place to be. It's hard to ramp up sometimes. Also, there's a lot of turnover. But you're right in the sense that a lot of the manual work that is needed for cybersecurity, it's actually more sort of much easier to tackle with machines- >> Yeah. >> Than humans. It's a funny double click on the stat you just gave. In North America, the responders when we asked them like how they're coping with the skills shortage, they said we're automating more. So we're using more AI, we're using more process automation to make sure we do the heavy lifting with machines and then only present to the people what they're very good at, is making judgements, right? Very sort of like last minute judgment calls. In the other parts of the world, the top answer to that question is how you're tackling cybersecurity skill shortage was, we're actually trying to provide higher wages and better benefits to the existing p... so there's a little bit of a gap between the two. But I think, I think the world is moving towards the former, which is let's do as much as we can with AI and machines and automation in general and then let's make sure we're more in an automation assisted world versus a human first world. >> We also saw on the survey that ransomware was, you know, the big concern in the United States. Not as much, not that it's not a concern >> Lisa: Yeah. >> In other parts of the world. >> Zeynep: Yeah. >> But it wasn't number one. Why do you think that is? Is it 'cause maybe the US has more to lose? Is it, you know, more high profile or- >> Yeah. Look, I mean, yes you're right? So most responders said number one is ransomware. That's my biggest concern going into 2023. And it was for JAPAC and I think EMEA, Europe, it was supply chain attacks. >> Dave: Right. >> So I think US has been hit hard by ransomware in the past year. I think it's like fresh memory and that's why it rose to the top in various verticals. So I'm not surprised with that outcome. I think supply chain is more of a... we've, you know, we've been hit hard globally by that, and it's very new. >> Lisa: Yeah. >> So I think a lot of the European and JAPAC responders are responding to it from a perspective of, this is a problem I still don't know how to solve. You know, like, and it's like I need the right infrastructure to...and I need the right visibility into my software supply chain. It's very top of mind. So those were some of the differences, but you're right. That was a very interesting regional distinction as well. >> How do you take this data and then bring it back to your customers to kind of close the loop? Do you do that? Do you say, okay, hey, we're going to share this data with you, get realtime feedback- >> Zeynep: Yes. >> Dave: We often like to do that with data- >> Zeynep: Absolutely. >> Say okay...'cause you know, when you do a survey like this, you're like, oh, I wish we asked A, B and C. But it gives you, informs you as to where to double click. Is there a system to do that? Or process to do that? >> Yes. Our hope and goal is to do this every year and see how things are changing and then do some historical analysis as to how things are changing as well. But as I said in the very beginning, I think we take this and we say, okay, there's a lot of alignment in these areas, especially for us for our products to see if where our products are deployed to see if some of those numbers vary, you know, per product. Because we address as a company, we address a lot of these concerns. So then it's very encouraging to say, okay, with certain customers, we're going to go, we're going to have develop certain metrics and we're going to measure how much of a difference we're making with these stats. >> Well, I mean, if you can show that you're consolidating- >> Yeah. >> You know, the number of tools and show the business impact- >> Right. >> Exactly. >> Home run. >> Exactly. Yes- >> Speaking of business outcomes, you know, we have so many conversations around everything needs to be outcome-based. Can security become an enabler of business outcomes for organizations? >> Absolutely. Security has to be an enabler. So it's, you know, back to the security lagging behind the evolution of the digital transformation, I don't think it's possible to move fast without having security move fast with digital transformation. I don't think anybody would raise their hands and say, I'm just going to have the most creative, most interesting digital transformation journey. But, you know, security is say, so I think we're past that point where I think generally people do agree that security has to run as fast as digital transformation and really enable those business outcomes that everybody's proud of. So Yes. Yes it is. >> So...sorry. So chicken and egg, digital transformation, cyber transformation. >> Zeynep: Yes. >> Lisa: How are they related? Is one digital leading? >> They are two halves of the perfect solution. They have to coexist because otherwise if you're taking a lot of risk with your digital transformation, is it really worth going through a digital transformation? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So there's a board over here. I'm looking at it and it started out blank. >> Yes. >> And it's what's next in cyber and basically- >> That's this. Yes. >> People can come through and they can write down, and there's some great stuff in there: 5G, cloud native, some technical stuff, automated meantime to repair or to remediation. >> Yeah. >> Somebody wrote AWS. The AWS guys left their mark, which is kind of cool. >> Zeynep: That's great. >> And so I'm wondering, so we always talk about... we just talked about earlier that cyber is a board...has become a board level you know, issue. I think even go back mid last decade, it was really starting to gain strength. What I'm looking for, and I dunno if there's anything in here that suggests this is going beyond the board. So it becomes this top down thing, not just the the SOC, not just the, you know, IT, not just the board. Now it's top down maybe it's bottom up, middle out. The awareness across the organization. >> Zeynep: Absolutely. >> And that's something that I think is that is a next big thing in cyber. I believe it's coming. >> Cybersecurity awareness is a topic. And you know, there are companies who do that, who actually educate just all of us who work for corporations on the best way to tackle, especially when the human is the source and the reason knowingly or unknowing, mostly unknowingly of cyber attacks. Their education and awareness is critical in preventing a lot of this...before our, you know tools even get in. So I agree with you that there is a cybersecurity awareness as a topic is going to be very, very popular in the future. >> Lena Smart is the CISO of MongoDB does... I forget what she calls it, but she basically takes the top security people in the company like the super geeks and puts 'em with those that know nothing about security, and they start having conversations. >> Zeynep: Yeah. >> And then so they can sort of be empathic to each other's point of view. >> Zeynep: Absolutely. >> And that's how she gets the organization to become cyber aware. >> Yes. >> It's brilliant. >> It is. >> So simple. >> Exactly. Well that's the beauty in it is the simplicity. >> Yeah. And there are programs just to put a plug. There are programs where you can simulate, for example, phishing attacks with your, you know employee base and your workforce. And then teach them at that moment when they fall for it, you know, what they should have done. >> I think I can make a family game night. >> Yeah. Yeah. (group laughs) >> I'm serious. That's a good little exercise For everybody. >> Yes. Yeah, exactly. >> It really is. Especially as the sophistication and smishing gets more and more common these days. Where can folks go to get their hands on this juicy survey that we just unpacked? >> We have it online, so if you go to the Palo Alto Networks website, there's a big link to the survey from there. So for sure there's a summary version that you can come in and you can have access to all the stats. >> Excellent. Zeynep, it's been such a pleasure having you on the program dissecting what's keeping CXOs up at night, what Palo Alto Networks is doing to really help organizations digitally transform cyber transformation and achieve that nirvana of cyber resilience. We appreciate so much your insights. >> Thanks very much. It's been the pleasure. >> Dave: Good to have you. >> Thank you >> Zeynep Ozdemir and Dave Vellante. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live and emerging tech coverage. (upbeat music)

>>The Cube presents Ignite 22, brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >>Hey guys, welcome back to the Cube, the leader in live enterprise and emerging tech coverage. We are live in Las Vegas at MGM Grand Hotel, Lisa Martin with Dave Valante, covering our first time covering Palo Alto Ignite. 22 in person. Dave, we've had some great conversations so far. We've got two days of wall to wall coverage. We're gonna be talking with Palo Alto execs, leaders, customers, partners, and we're gonna be talking about the partner ecosystem >>Next. Wow. Super important. You know, it's funny you talk about for a minute, you didn't know where we were. I, I came to Vegas in May. I feel like I never left two weeks ago reinvent, which was I, I thought the most awesome reinvent ever. And it was really all about the ecosystem and the marketplace. So super excited to have that >>Conversation. Yeah, we've got Wet Whit Krump joining us, director of America's business development worldwide channels and customer programs at AWS marketplace. Wet, welcome to the Cube. Great to have >>You. Thanks for having me. Give >>Us a, you got a big title there. Give us a little bit of flavor of your scope of work at aws. >>Yeah, sure. So I, I've been with the marketplace team now almost eight years and originally founded our channel programs. And my scope has expanded to not just cover channels, but all things related to customers. So if you think about marketplace having sort of two sides, one being very focused on the isv, I tend to manage all things related to our in customer and our, our channel partners. >>What are some of the feedback that you're getting from customers and channel partners as the marketplace has has evolved so much? >>Yeah. You know, it's, it's, it's been interesting to watch over the course of the years, getting to see it start its infancy and grow up. One of the things that we hear often from customers and from our channel partners, and maybe not so directly, is it's not about finding the things they necessarily want to buy, although that's important, but it's the actual act of how they're able to purchase things and making that a much more streamlined process, especially in large enterprises where there's a lot of complexity. We wanna make that a lot simple, simpler for our customers. >>I mean, vendor management is such a hassle, right? But, so when I come into the marketplace, it's all there. I gotta console, it's integrated, I choose what I want. The billing is simplified. How has that capability evolved since the time that you've been at aws and where do you, where do you want to take it? >>Yeah, so when we, we first started Marketplace, it was really a pay as you go model customer come, they buy whatever, you know, whatever the, the whatever the solution was. And then it was, you know, charged by the hour and then the year. And one of the things that we discovered through customer and partner feedback was especially when they're dealing with large enterprise purchases, you know, they want to be able to instantiate those custom price and terms, you know, into that contract while enjoying the benefits of, of marketplace. And that's been, I think the biggest evolution started in 2017 with private offers, 2018 with consulting partner private offers. And then we've added things on over time to streamline procurement for, for >>Customers. So one of the hottest topics right now, everybody wants to talk about the macro and the headwinds and everything else, but when you talk to customers like, look, I gotta do more with less, less, that's the big theme. Yeah. And, and I wanna optimize my spend. Cloud allows me to do that because I can dial down, I can push storage to, to lower tiers. There's a lot of different things that I can do. Yeah. What are the techniques that people are using in the ecosystem Yeah. To bring in the partner cost optimization. Yeah. >>And so one of the key things that, that partners are, are, are doing for customers, they act as that trusted advisor. And, you know, when using marketplace either directly or through a partner, you know, customers are able to really save money through a licensing flexibility. They're also able to streamline their procurement. And then if there's an at-risk spin situation, they're able to, to manage that at-risk spend by combining marketplace and AWS spin into into one, you know, basically draws down their commitments to, to the company. >>And we talk about ask at-risk spend, you might talk about user or lose IT type of spend, right? Yeah. And so you, you increase the optionality in terms of where you can get value from your cloud spend. That's >>All right. Customers are thinking about their, their IT spend more strategically now more than ever. And so they're not just thinking about how do I buy infrastructure here and then software here, data services, they wanna combine this into one place. It's a lot less to keep up with a lot, a lot less overhead for them. But also just the simplification that you alluded to earlier around, you know, all the billing and vendor management is, and now in one, one streamlined, one streamlined process. Talk >>About that as a facilitator of organizations being able to reduce their risk profile. >>Yeah, so, you know, one of the things that, that came out earlier this year with Forrester was a to were total economic impact studies for both an ISV and for the end customer. But there was also a thought leadership study done where they surveyed over 700 customers worldwide to sort of get their thoughts on procurement and risk profile management. And, and one of the things that was really, you know, really surprising was is was that, you know, I guess it was like over 78% of of respondents DEF stated that they didn't feel like their, their companies had a really well-defined governance model and that over half of software and data purchases actually went outside of procurement. And so the companies aren't really able to, don't, they don't really have eyes on all of this spin and it's substantial >>And that's a, a huge risk for the organization. >>Yeah. Huge risk for the organization. And, and you know, half of the respondents stated outright that like they viewed marketplaces a way for them to reduce their risk profile because they, they were able to have a better governance model around that. >>So what's the business case can take us through that. How, how should a customer think about that? So, okay, I get that the procurement department likes it and the CFO probably likes it, but how, what, what's the dynamic around the business? So if I'm a, let's say I'm, I'm a bus, I'm a business person, I'm a, and running the process, I got my little, I get my procurement reach around. Yeah. What does the data suggest that what's in it from me, right? From a company wide standpoint, you know, what are the, maybe the Forester guys address this. So yeah, that overall business case I think is important. >>Yeah, I think, I think one of the big headlines for the end customer is because of license flexibility is that is is about a 10% cost savings in, in license cost. They're able to right size their purchases to buy the things they actually need. They're not gonna have these big overarching ELAs. There's gonna be a lot of other things in there that, that they don't, they don't really aren't gonna really directly use. You're talking about shelfware, you know, that sort of the classic term buy something, it never gets used, you know, also from just a, a getting things done perspective, big piece of feedback from customers is the contracting process takes a long time. It takes several months, especially for a large purchase. And a lot of those discussions are very repetitive. You know, you're talking about the same things over and over again. And we actually built a feature called standardized contract where we talked to a number of customers and ISVs distilled a contract down into a, a largely a set of terms that both sides already agreed to. And it cuts that, that contract time down by 90%. So if you're a legal team in a company, there's only so many of you and you have a lot of things to get done. If you can shave 90% off your time, that that's, that's now you can now work on a lot of other things for the, the corporation. Right. >>A lot of business impact there. You think faster time to value, faster time to market workforce optimization. >>Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it, it, you know, from an ISV standpoint, the measurement is they're, they're able to close deals about 40% faster, which is great for the isv. I mean obviously they love that. But if you're a customer, you're actually getting the innovative technologies you need 40% faster. So you can actually do the work you want to take it to your customers and drive the business. >>You guys recently launched, what is it, vendor Insights? Yeah. Talk a little bit about that, the value. What are some of the things that you're seeing with that? >>Yeah, so that goes into the, the onboarding value add of marketplaces. The number of things that go into, to cutting that time according to Forrester by 75%. But Vendor Insights was based on a key piece, offa impact from customers. So, you know, marketplace is used for, one of the reasons is discoverability by customers, Hey, what is the broader landscape? Look for example of security or storage partners, you know, trying to, trying to understand what is even available. And then the double click is, alright, well how does that company, or how does that vendor fit into my risk profile? You know, understanding what their compliance metrics are, things of that nature. And so historically they would have to, a customer would've to go to an ISV and say, all right, I want you to fill out this form, you know that my questionnaire. And so they would trade this back and forth as they have questions. Now with vendor insights, a customer can actually subscribe to this and they're able to actually see the risk profile of that vendor from the inside out, you know, from the inside of their SaaS application, what does it look like on a real time basis? And they can go back and look at that whenever they want. And you know, the, the, the feedback since the launch has been fantastic. And that, and I think that helps us double down on the already the, the onboarding benefits that we are providing customers. >>This, this, I wanna come back to this idea of cost optimization and, and try to tie it into predictability. You know, a lot of people, you know, complain, oh, I got surprised at the end of the month. So if I understand it wit by, by leveraging the marketplace and the breadth that you have in the marketplace, I can say, okay, look, I'm gonna spend X amount on tech. Yeah. And, and this approach allows me to say, all right, because right now procurement or historically procurement's been a bunch of stove pipes, I can't take from here and easily put it over there. Right. You're saying that this not only addresses the sort of cost optimization, does it also address the predictability challenge? >>Yeah, and I, I think another way to describe that is, is around cost controls. And you know, just from a reporting perspective, you know, we, we have what are called cost utilization reports or curve files. And we provide those to customers anytime they want and they can load those into Tableau, use whatever analysis tools that they want to be able to use. And so, and then you can actually tag usage in those reports. And what we're really talking about is helping customers adopt thin op practices. So, you know, develop directly for the cloud customers are able to understand, okay, who's using what, when and where. So everyone's informed that creates a really collaborative environment. It also holds people accountable for their spin. So that, you know, again, talking about shelfware, we bought things we're not gonna use or we're overusing people are using software that they probably don't really need to. And so that's, that adds to that predictable is everyone has great visibility into what's happening. And there's >>Another, I mean, of course saving money is, is, is in vogue right now because you know, the headwinds and the economics, et cetera. But there's also another side of the equation, which is, I mean, I see this a lot. You know, the CFO says financial people, why is our cloud bill so high? Well it's because we're actually driving all this revenue. And so, you know, you've seen it so many so often in companies, you know, the, the spreadsheet analysis says, oh, cut that. Well, what happens to revenue if you cut that? Right? Yeah. So with that visibility, the answer may be, well actually if we double down on that, yeah, we're actually gonna make more money cuz we actually have a margin on this and it's, it's got operating leverage. So if we double that, you know, we could, so that kind of cross organization communication to make better decisions, I think is another key factor. Yeah. >>Huge impact there. Talk ultimately about how the buyer's journey seems to have been really transformed >>The >>Correct. Right? So if you're, if you're a buyer, you know, initially to your point is, you know, I'm just looking for a point solution, right? And then you move on to the next one and the next one. And now, you know, working with our teams and using the platform, you know, and frankly customers are thinking more strategically about their IT spend holistically. The conversations that we're having with us is, it's not about how do I find the solution today, but here's my forward looking software spend, or I'm going through a migration, I wanna rationalize the software portfolio I have today as I'm gonna lift and shift it to aws. You know, what is going to make the trip? What are we gonna discard entirely because it's not really optimized for the cloud. Or there's that shelf wheel component, which is, hey, you know, maybe 15 to 25% of my portfolio, it's just not even getting utilized. And that, and that's a sunk cost to your point, which is, you know, that's, that's money I could be using on something that really impacts the bottom line in various areas of the business. Right. >>What would you say is the number one request you get or feedback you get from the end customers? And how is that different from what you hear from the channel partners? How aligned or Yeah. Are those >>Vectors? I would say from a customer perspective, one of the key things I hear about is around visibility of spin, right? And I was just talking about these reports and you know, using cost optimization tools, being able to use features like identity and access management, managing entitlements, private marketplaces. Basically them being able to have a stronger governance model in the cloud. For one thing, it's, it's, you know, keeping everybody on track like some of the points I was talking about earlier, but also cost, cost optimization around, you know, limiting vendor sprawl. Are we actually really using all the things that we need? And then from a channel partner perspective, you know, some of the things I talked about earlier about that 40% faster sales cycle, you know, that that TEI or the total economic impact study that was done by Forrester was, was built for the isv. >>But if you're a channel partner sitting between the customer and the isv, you kind of get to, you get a little bit of the best of both worlds, right? You're acting as that, you're acting as that that advisor. And so if you're a channel partner, the procurement streamlining is a huge benefit because the, you know, like you said, saving money is in vogue right now. You're trying to do more with less. So if you're thinking about 20, 27% faster win rates, 40% faster time to close, and you're the customer who's trying to impact the bottom line by, by innovating more, more quickly, those two pieces of feedback are really coming together and meeting in, in the middle >>Throughout 2021, or sorry, 2022, our survey partner, etr Enterprise Technology Research has asked their panel a question is what's your strategy for, you know, doing more with less? By far the number one response has been consolidating redundant vendors. Yes. And then optimizing cloud was, you know, second, but, but way, way lower than that. The number from last survey went from 34%. It's now up to 44% in the January survey, which is in the field, which they gave me a glimpse to last night. So you're seeing dramatic uptick Yeah. In that point. Yeah. And then you guys are helping, >>We, we definitely are. I mean, it, there's the reporting piece so they have a better visibility of what they're doing. And then you think about a, a feature like private marketplace and manage entitlements. So private marketplace enables a customer to create their own private marketplace as the name states where they can limit access to it for certain types of software to the actual in customer who needs to use that software. And so, you know, not everybody needs a license to software X, right? And so that helps with the sprawl comment to your point, that's, that's on the increase, right? Am I actually spending money on things that we need to use? >>But also on the consolidation front, you, we, we talked with nikesh an hour or so ago, he was mentioning on stage, if you, if you just think of this number of security tools or cybersecurity tools that an organization has on its network, 30 to 50. And we were talking about, well, how does Palo Alto Networks what's realistic in terms of consolidation? But it sounds like what you're doing in the marketplace is giving organizations the visibility, correct, for sure. Into what they're running, usage spend, et cetera, to help facilitate ultimately at some point facilitate a strategic consolidation. >>It's, that's exactly right. And if you, you think about cost optimization, our procurement features, you know, the, the practice that we're trying to help customers around, around finops, it's all about helping customers build a, a modern procurement practice and supply chain. And so that helps with, with that point exactly. The keynotes >>Point. Exactly. So last question for you. What, what's next? What can we expect? >>Oh, so what's next for me is, you know, I, I really want to, you know, my channel business for example, you know, I want to think about enabling new types of partners. So if we've worked really heavily with resellers, we worked very heavily with Palo Alto on the reseller community, how are we bringing in more services partners of various types? You know, the gsi, the distributors, cloud service providers, managed security service providers was in a keynote yesterday listening to Palo Alto talk about their five routes to market. And, you know, they had these bubbles. And so I was like, gosh, that's exactly how I'm thinking about the business is how am I expanding my own footprint to customers that have deeper, I mean, excuse me, to partners that have deeper levels of cloud knowledge, can be more of that advisor, help customers really understand how to maximize their business on aws. And, and you know, my job is to really help facilitate that, that innovative technology through those partners. >>So sounds like powerful force, that ecosystem. Exactly. Great alignment. AWS and Palo Alto, thank you so much for joining us with, we >>Appreciate, thanks for having >>With what's going on at aws, the partner network, the mp, and all that good stuff. That's really the value in it for customers, ISVs and channel partners. I like. We appreciate your insights. >>Thank you. Thanks for having me. Thank you. >>Our guests and Dave Valante. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching the Cube Lee Leer in live enterprise and emerging tech coverage.

>> From "theCube" Studios in Palo Alto in Boston bringing you data-driven insights from "theCube" and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> As an independent pure play company, Palo Alto Networks has earned its status as the leader in security. You can measure this in a variety of ways. Revenue, market cap, execution, ethos, and most importantly, conversations with customers generally. In CISO specifically, who consistently affirm this position. The company's on track to double its revenues in fiscal year 23 relative to fiscal year 2020. Despite macro headwinds, which are likely to carry through next year, Palo Alto owes its position to a clarity of vision and strong execution on a TAM expansion strategy through acquisitions and integration into its cloud and SaaS offerings. Hello and welcome to this week's "Wikibon Cube Insights" powered by ETR and this breaking analysis and ahead of Palo Alto Ignite the company's user conference, we bring you the next chapter on top of the last week's cybersecurity update. We're going to dig into the ETR data on Palo Alto Networks as we promised and provide a glimpse of what we're going to look for at "Ignite" and posit what Palo Alto needs to do to stay on top of the hill. Now, the challenges for cybersecurity professionals. Dead simple to understand. Solving it, not so much. This is a taxonomic eye test, if you will, from Optiv. It's one of our favorite artifacts to make the point the cybersecurity landscape is a mosaic of stovepipes. Security professionals have to work with dozens of tools many legacy combined with shiny new toys to try and keep up with the relentless pace of innovation catalyzed by the incredibly capable well-funded and motivated adversaries. Cybersecurity is an anomalous market in that the leaders have low single digit market shares. Think about that. Cisco at one point held 60% market share in the networking business and it's still deep into the 40s. Oracle captures around 30% of database market revenue. EMC and storage at its peak had more than 30% of that market. Even Dell's PC market shares, you know, in the mid 20s or even over that from a revenue standpoint. So cybersecurity from a market share standpoint is even more fragmented perhaps than the software industry. Okay, you get the point. So despite its position as the number one player Palo Alto might have maybe three maybe 4% of the total market, depending on what you use as your denominator, but just a tiny slice. So how is it that we can sit here and declare Palo Alto as the undisputed leader? Well, we probably wouldn't go that far. They probably have quite a bit of competition. But this CISO from a recent ETR round table discussion with our friend Eric Bradley, summed up Palo Alto's allure. We thought pretty well. The question was why Palo Alto Networks? Here's the answer. Because of its completeness as a platform, its ability to integrate with its own products or they acquire, integrate then rebrand them as their own. We've looked at other vendors we just didn't think they were as mature and we already had implemented some of the Palo Alto tools like the firewalls and stuff and we thought why not go holistically with the vendor a single throat to choke, if you will, if stuff goes wrong. And I think that was probably the primary driver and familiarity with the tools and the resources that they provided. Now here's another stat from ETR's Eric Bradley. He gave us a glimpse of the January survey that's in the field now. The percent of IT buyers stating that they plan to consolidate redundant vendors, it went from 34% in the October survey and now stands at 44%. So we fo we feel this bodes well for consolidators like Palo Alto networks. And the same is true from Microsoft's kind of good enough approach. It should also be true for CrowdStrike although last quarter we saw softness reported on in their SMB market, whereas interestingly MongoDB actually saw consistent strength from its SMB and its self-serve. So that's something that we're watching very closely. Now, Palo Alto Networks has held up better than most of its peers in the stock market. So let's take a look at that real quick. This chart gives you a sense of how well. It's a one year comparison of Palo Alto with the bug ETF. That's the cyber basket that we like to compare often CrowdStrike, Zscaler, and Okta. Now remember Palo Alto, they didn't run up as much as CrowdStrike, ZS and Okta during the pandemic but you can see it's now down unquote only 9% for the year. Whereas the cyber basket ETF is off 27% roughly in line with the NASDAQ. We're not showing that CrowdStrike down 44%, Zscaler down 61% and Okta off a whopping 72% in the past 12 months. Now as we've indicated, Palo Alto is making a strong case for consolidating point tools and we think it will have a much harder time getting customers to switch off of big platforms like Cisco who's another leader in network security. But based on the fragmentation in the market there's plenty of room to grow in our view. We asked breaking analysis contributor Chip Simington for his take on the technicals of the stock and he said that despite Palo Alto's leadership position it doesn't seem to make much difference these days. It's all about interest rates. And even though this name has performed better than its peers, it looks like the stock wants to keep testing its 52 week lows, but he thinks Palo Alto got oversold during the last big selloff. And the fact that the company's free cash flow is so strong probably keeps it at the one 50 level or above maybe bouncing around there for a while. If it breaks through that under to the downside it's ne next test is at that low of around one 40 level. So thanks for that, Chip. Now having get that out of the way as we said on the previous chart Palo Alto has strong opinions, it's founder and CTO, Nir Zuk, is extremely clear on that point of view. So let's take a look at how Palo Alto got to where it is today and how we think you should think about his future. The company was founded around 18 years ago as a network security company focused on what they called NextGen firewalls. Now, what Palo Alto did was different. They didn't try to stuff a bunch of functionality inside of a hardware box. Rather they layered network security functions on top of its firewalls and delivered value as a service through software running at the time in its own cloud. So pretty obvious today, but forward thinking for the time and now they've moved to a more true cloud native platform and much more activity in the public cloud. In February, 2020, right before the pandemic we reported on the divergence in market values between Palo Alto and Fort Net and we cited some challenges that Palo Alto was happening having transitioning to a cloud native model. And at the time we said we were confident that Palo Alto would make it through the knot hole. And you could see from the previous chart that it has. So the company's architectural approach was to do the heavy lifting in the cloud. And this eliminates the need for customers to deploy sensors on prem or proxies on prem or sandboxes on prem sandboxes, you know for instance are vulnerable to overwhelming attacks. Think about it, if you're a sandbox is on prem you're not going to be updating that every day. No way. You're probably not going to updated even every week or every month. And if the capacity of your sandbox is let's say 20,000 files an hour you know a hacker's just going to turn up the volume, it'll overwhelm you. They'll send a hundred thousand emails attachments into your sandbox and they'll choke you out and then they'll have the run of the house while you're trying to recover. Now the cloud doesn't completely prevent that but what it does, it definitely increases the hacker's cost. So they're going to probably hit some easier targets and that's kind of the objective of security firms. You know, increase the denominator on the ROI. All right, the next thing that Palo Alto did is start acquiring aggressively, I think we counted 17 or 18 acquisitions to expand the TAM beyond network security into endpoint CASB, PaaS security, IaaS security, container security, serverless security, incident response, SD WAN, CICD pipeline security, attack service management, supply chain security. Just recently with the acquisition of Cider Security and Palo Alto by all accounts takes the time to integrate into its cloud and SaaS platform called Prisma. Unlike many acquisitive companies in the past EMC was a really good example where you ended up with a kind of a Franken portfolio. Now all this leads us to believe that Palo Alto wants to be the consolidator and is in a good position to do so. But beyond that, as multi-cloud becomes more prevalent and more of a strategy customers tell us they want a consistent experience across clouds. And is going to be the same by the way with IoT. So of the next wave here. Customers don't want another stove pipe. So we think Palo Alto is in a good position to build what we call the security super cloud that layer above the clouds that brings a common experience for devs and operational teams. So of course the obvious question is this, can Palo Alto networks continue on this path of acquire and integrate and still maintain best of breed status? Can it? Will it? Does it even have to? As Holger Mueller of Constellation Research and I talk about all the time integrated suites seem to always beat best of breed in the long run. We'll come back to that. Now, this next graphic that we're going to show you underscores this question about portfolio. Here's a picture and I don't expect you to digest it all but it's a screen grab of Palo Alto's product and solutions portfolios, network cloud, network security rather, cloud security, Sassy, CNAP, endpoint unit 42 which is their threat intelligence platform and every imaginable security service and solution for customers. Well, maybe not every, I'm sure there's more to come like supply chain with the recent Cider acquisition and maybe more IoT beyond ZingBox and earlier acquisition but we're sure there will be more in the future both organic and inorganic. Okay, let's bring in more of the ETR survey data. For those of you who don't know ETR, they are the number one enterprise data platform surveying thousands of end customers every quarter with additional drill down surveys and customer round tables just an awesome SaaS enabled platform. And here's a view that shows net score or spending momentum on the vertical axis in provision or presence within the ETR data set on the horizontal axis. You see that red dotted line at 40%. Anything at or over that indicates a highly elevated net score. And as you can see Palo Alto is right on that line just under. And I'll give you another glimpse it looks like Palo Alto despite the macro may even just edge up a bit in the next survey based on the glimpse that Eric gave us. Now those colored bars in the bottom right corner they show the breakdown of Palo Alto's net score and underscore the methodology that ETR uses. The lime green is new customer adoptions, that's 7%. The forest green at 38% represents the percent of customers that are spending 6% or more on Palo Alto solutions. The gray is at that 40 or 8% that's flat spending plus or minus 5%. The pinkish at 5% is spending is down on Palo Alto network products by 6% or worse. And the bright red at only 2% is churn or defections. Very low single digit numbers for Palo Alto, that's a real positive. What you do is you subtract the red from the green and you get a net score of 38% which is very good for a company of Palo Alto size. And we'll note this is based on just under 400 responses in the ETR survey that are Palo Alto customers out of around 1300 in the total survey. It's a really good representation of Palo Alto. And you can see the other leading companies like CrowdStrike, Okta, Zscaler, Forte, Cisco they loom large with similar aspirations. Well maybe not so much Okta. They don't necessarily rule want to rule the world. They want to rule identity and of course the ever ubiquitous Microsoft in the upper right. Now drilling deeper into the ETR data, let's look at how Palo Alto has progressed over the last three surveys in terms of market presence in the survey. This view of the data shows provision in the data going back to October, 2021, that's the gray bars. The blue is July 22 and the yellow is the latest survey from October, 2022. Remember, the January survey is currently in the field. Now the leftmost set of data there show size a company. The middle set of data shows the industry for a select number of industries in the right most shows, geographic region. Notice anything, yes, Palo Alto up across the board relative to both this past summer and last fall. So that's pretty impressive. Palo Alto network CEO, Nikesh Aurora, stressed on the last earnings call that the company is seeing somewhat elongated deal approvals and sometimes splitting up size of deals. He's stressed that certain industries like energy, government and financial services continue to spend. But we would expect even a pullback there as companies get more conservative. But the point is that Nikesh talked about how they're hiring more sales pros to work the pipeline because they understand that they have to work harder to pull deals forward 'cause they got to get more approvals and they got to increase the volume that's coming through the pipeline to account for the possibility that certain companies are going to split up the deals, you know, large deals they want to split into to smaller bite size chunks. So they're really going hard after they go to market expansion to account for that. All right, so we're going to wrap by sharing what we expect and what we're going to probe for at Palo Alto Ignite next week, Lisa Martin and I will be hosting "theCube" and here's what we'll be looking for. First, it's a four day event at the MGM with the meat of the program on days two and three. That's day two was the big keynote. That's when we'll start our broadcasting, we're going for two days. Now our understanding is we've never done Palo Alto Ignite before but our understanding it's a pretty technically oriented crowd that's going to be eager to hear what CTO and founder Nir Zuk has to say. And as well CEO Nikesh Aurora and as in addition to longtime friend of "theCube" and current president, BJ Jenkins, he's going to be speaking. Wendy Whitmore runs Unit 42 and is going to be several other high profile Palo Alto execs, as well, Thomas Kurian from Google is a featured speaker. Lee Claridge, who is Palo Alto's, chief product officer we think is going to be giving the audience heavy doses of Prisma Cloud and Cortex enhancements. Now, Cortex, you might remember, came from an acquisition and does threat detection and attack surface management. And we're going to hear a lot about we think about security automation. So we'll be listening for how Cortex has been integrated and what kind of uptake that it's getting. We've done some, you know, modeling in from the ETR. Guys have done some modeling of cortex, you know looks like it's got a lot of upside and through the Palo Alto go to market machine, you know could really pick up momentum. That's something that we'll be probing for. Now, one of the other things that we'll be watching is pricing. We want to talk to customers about their spend optimization, their spending patterns, their vendor consolidation strategies. Look, Palo Alto is a premium offering. It charges for value. It's expensive. So we also want to understand what kind of switching costs are customers willing to absorb and how onerous they are and what's the business case look like? How are they thinking about that business case. We also want to understand and really probe on how will Palo Alto maintain best of breed as it continues to acquire and integrate to expand its TAM and appeal as that one-stop shop. You know, can it do that as we talked about before. And will it do that? There's also an interesting tension going on sort of changing subjects here in security. There's a guy named Edward Hellekey who's been in "theCube" before. He hasn't been in "theCube" in a while but he's a security pro who has educated us on the nuances of protecting data privacy, public policy, how it varies by region and how complicated it is relative to security. Because securities you technically you have to show a chain of custody that proves unequivocally, for example that data has been deleted or scrubbed or that metadata does. It doesn't include any residual private data that violates the laws, the local laws. And the tension is this, you need good data and lots of it to have good security, really the more the better. But government policy is often at odds in a major blocker to sharing data and it's getting more so. So we want to understand this tension and how companies like Palo Alto are dealing with it. Our customers testing public policy in courts we think not quite yet, our government's making exceptions and policies like GDPR that favor security over data privacy. What are the trade-offs there? And finally, one theme of this breaking analysis is what does Palo Alto have to do to stay on top? And we would sum it up with three words. Ecosystem, ecosystem, ecosystem. And we said this at CrowdStrike Falcon in September that the one concern we had was the pace of ecosystem development for CrowdStrike. Is collaboration possible with competitors? Is being adopted aggressively? Is Palo Alto being adopted aggressively by global system integrators? What's the uptake there? What about developers? Look, the hallmark of a cloud company which Palo Alto is a cloud security company is a thriving ecosystem that has entries into and exits from its platform. So we'll be looking at what that ecosystem looks like how vibrant and inclusive it is where the public clouds fit and whether Palo Alto Networks can really become the security super cloud. Okay, that's a wrap stop by next week. If you're in Vegas, say hello to "theCube" team. We have an unbelievable lineup on the program. Now if you're not there, check out our coverage on theCube.net. I want to thank Eric Bradley for sharing a glimpse on short notice of the upcoming survey from ETR and his thoughts. And as always, thanks to Chip Symington for his sharp comments. Want to thank Alex Morrison, who's on production and manages the podcast Ken Schiffman as well in our Boston studio, Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight they help get the word out on social and of course in our newsletters, Rob Hoof, is our editor in chief over at Silicon Angle who does some awesome editing, thank you to all. Remember all these episodes they're available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, all you got to do is search "Breaking Analysis" podcasts. I publish each week on wikibon.com and silicon angle.com where you can email me at david.valante@siliconangle.com or dm me at D Valante or comment on our LinkedIn post. And please do check out etr.ai. They've got the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Valante for "theCube" Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week on "Ignite" or next time on "Breaking Analysis". (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hey, everyone, welcome back to Las Vegas, "theCube" is on our fourth day of covering AWS re:Invent, live from the Venetian Expo Center. This week has been amazing. We've created a ton of content, as you know, 'cause you've been watching. But, there's been north of 55,000 people here, hundreds of thousands online. We've had amazing conversations across the AWS ecosystem. Lisa Martin, Paul Gillan. Paul, what's your, kind of, take on day four of the conference? It's still highly packed. >> Oh, there's lots of people here. (laughs) >> Yep. Unusual for the final day of a conference. I think Werner Vogels, if I'm pronouncing it right kicked things off today when he talked about asymmetry and how the world is, you know, asymmetric. We build symmetric software, because it's convenient to do so, but asymmetric software actually scales and evolves much better. And I think that that was a conversation starter for a lot of what people are talking about here today, which is how the cloud changes the way we think about building software. >> Absolutely does. >> Our next guest, Holger Mueller, that's one of his key areas of focus. And Holger, welcome, thanks for joining us on the "theCube". >> Thanks for having me. >> What did you take away from the keynote this morning? >> Well, how do you feel on the final day of the marathon, right? We're like 23, 24 miles. Hit the ball yesterday, right? >> We are going strong Holger. And, of course, >> Yeah. >> you guys, we can either talk about business transformation with cloud or the World Cup. >> Or we can do both. >> The World Cup, hands down. World Cup. (Lisa laughs) Germany's out, I'm unbiased now. They just got eliminated. >> Spain is out now. >> What will the U.S. do against Netherlands tomorrow? >> They're going to win. What's your forecast? U.S. will win? >> They're going to win 2 to 1. >> What do you say, 2:1? >> I'm optimistic, but realistic. >> 3? >> I think Netherlands. >> Netherlands will win? >> 2 to nothing. >> Okay, I'll vote for the U.S.. >> Okay, okay >> 3:1 for the U.S.. >> Be optimistic. >> Root for the U.S.. >> Okay, I like that. >> Hope for the best wherever you work. >> Tomorrow you'll see how much soccer experts we are. >> If your prediction was right. (laughs) >> (laughs) Ja, ja. Or yours was right, right, so. Cool, no, but the event, I think the event is great to have 50,000 people. Biggest event of the year again, right? Not yet the 70,000 we had in 2019. But it's great to have the energy. I've never seen the show floor going all the way down like this, right? >> I haven't either. >> I've never seen that. I think it's a record. Often vendors get the space here and they have the keynote area, and the entertainment area, >> Yeah. >> and the food area, and then there's an exposition, right? This is packed. >> It's packed. >> Maybe it'll pay off. >> You don't see the big empty booths that you often see. >> Oh no. >> Exactly, exactly. You know, the white spaces and so on. >> No. >> Right. >> Which is a good thing. >> There's lots of energy, which is great. And today's, of course, the developer day, like you said before, right now Vogels' a rockstar in the developer community, right. Revered visionary on what has been built, right? And he's becoming a little professorial is my feeling, right. He had these moments before too, when it was justifying how AWS moved off the Oracle database about the importance of data warehouses and structures and why DynamoDB is better and so on. But, he had a large part of this too, and this coming right across the keynotes, right? Adam Selipsky talking about Antarctica, right? Scott against almonds and what went wrong. He didn't tell us, by the way, which often the tech winners forget. Scott banked on technology. He had motorized sleds, which failed after three miles. So, that's not the story to tell the technology. Let everything down. Everybody went back to ponies and horses and dogs. >> Maybe goes back to these asynchronous behavior. >> Yeah. >> The way of nature. >> And, yesterday, Swami talking about the bridges, right? The root bridges, right? >> Right. >> So, how could Werner pick up with his video at the beginning. >> Yeah. >> And then talk about space and other things? So I think it's important to educate about event-based architecture, right? And we see this massive transformation. Modern software has to be event based, right? Because, that's how things work and we didn't think like this before. I see this massive transformation in my other research area in other platforms about the HR space, where payrolls are being rebuilt completely. And payroll used to be one of the three peaks of ERP, right? You would size your ERP machine before the cloud to financial close, to run the payroll, and to do an MRP manufacturing run if you're manufacturing. God forbid you run those three at the same time. Your machine wouldn't be able to do that, right? So it was like start the engine, start the boosters, we are running payroll. And now the modern payroll designs like you see from ADP or from Ceridian, they're taking every payroll relevant event. You check in time wise, right? You go overtime, you take a day of vacation and right away they trigger and run the payroll, so it's up to date for you, up to date for you, which, in this economy, is super important, because we have more gig workers, we have more contractors, we have employees who are leaving suddenly, right? The great resignation, which is happening. So, from that perspective, it's the modern way of building software. So it's great to see Werner showing that. The dirty little secrets though is that is more efficient software for the cloud platform vendor too. Takes less resources, gets less committed things, so it's a much more scalable architecture. You can move the events, you can work asynchronously much better. And the biggest showcase, right? What's the biggest transactional showcase for an eventually consistent asynchronous transactional application? I know it's a mouthful, but we at Amazon, AWS, Amazon, right? You buy something on Amazon they tell you it's going to come tomorrow. >> Yep. >> They don't know it's going to come tomorrow by that time, because it's not transactionally consistent, right? We're just making every ERP vendor, who lives in transactional work, having nightmares of course, (Lisa laughs) but for them it's like, yes we have the delivery to promise, a promise to do that, right? But they come back to you and say, "Sorry, we couldn't make it, delivery didn't work and so on. It's going to be a new date. We are out of the product.", right? So these kind of event base asynchronous things are more and more what's going to scale around the world. It's going to be efficient for everybody, it's going to be better customer experience, better employee experience, ultimately better user experience, it's going to be better for the enterprise to build, but we have to learn to build it. So big announcement was to build our environment to build better eventful applications from today. >> Talk about... This is the first re:Invent... Well, actually, I'm sorry, it's the second re:Invent under Adam Selipsky. >> Right. Adam Selipsky, yep. >> But his first year. >> Right >> We're hearing a lot of momentum. What's your takeaway with what he delivered with the direction Amazon is going, their vision? >> Ja, I think compared to the Jassy times, right, we didn't see the hockey stick slide, right? With a number of innovations and releases. That was done in 2019 too, right? So I think it's a more pedestrian pace, which, ultimately, is good for everybody, because it means that when software vendors go slower, they do less width, but more depth. >> Yeah. >> And depth is what customers need. So Amazon's building more on the depth side, which is good news. I also think, and that's not official, right, but Adam Selipsky came from Tableau, right? >> Yeah. So he is a BI analytics guy. So it's no surprise we have three data lake offerings, right? Security data lake, we have a healthcare data lake and we have a supply chain data lake, right? Where all, again, the epigonos mentioned them I was like, "Oh, my god, Amazon's coming to supply chain.", but it's actually data lakes, which is an interesting part. But, I think it's not a surprise that someone who comes heavily out of the analytics BI world, it's off ringside, if I was pitching internally to him maybe I'd do something which he's is familiar with and I think that's what we see in the major announcement of his keynote on Tuesday. >> I mean, speaking of analytics, one of the big announcements early on was Amazon is trying to bridge the gap between Aurora. >> Yep. >> And Redshift. >> Right. >> And setting up for continuous pipelines, continuous integration. >> Right. >> Seems to be a trend that is common to all database players. I mean, Oracle is doing the same thing. SAP is doing the same thing. MariaDB. Do you see the distinction between transactional and analytical databases going away? >> It's coming together, right? Certainly coming together, from that perspective, but there's a fundamental different starting point, right? And with the big idea part, right? The universal database, which does everything for you in one system, whereas the suite of specialized databases, right? Oracle is in the classic Oracle database in the universal database camp. On the other side you have Amazon, which built a database. This is one of the first few Amazon re:Invents. It's my 10th where there was no new database announced. Right? >> No. >> So it was always add another one specially- >> I think they have enough. >> It's a great approach. They have enough, right? So it's a great approach to build something quick, which Amazon is all about. It's not so great when customers want to leverage things. And, ultimately, which I think with Selipsky, AWS is waking up to the enterprise saying, "I have all this different database and what is in them matters to me." >> Yeah. >> "So how can I get this better?" So no surprise between the two most popular database, Aurora and RDS. They're bring together the data with some out of the box parts. I think it's kind of, like, silly when Swami's saying, "Hey, no ETL.". (chuckles) Right? >> Yeah. >> There shouldn't be an ETL from the same vendor, right? There should be data pipes from that perspective anyway. So it looks like, on the overall value proposition database side, AWS is moving closer to the universal database on the Oracle side, right? Because, if you lift, of course, the universal database, under the hood, you see, well, there's different database there, different part there, you do something there, you have to configure stuff, which is also the case but it's one part of it, right, so. >> With that shift, talk about the value that's going to be in it for customers regardless of industry. >> Well, the value for customers is great, because when software vendors, or platform vendors, go in depth, you get more functionality, you get more maturity you get easier ways of setting up the whole things. You get ways of maintaining things. And you, ultimately, get lower TCO to build them, which is super important for enterprise. Because, here, this is the developer cloud, right? Developers love AWS. Developers are scarce, expensive. Might not be want to work for you, right? So developer velocity getting more done with same amount of developers, getting less done, less developers getting more done, is super crucial, super important. So this is all good news for enterprise banking on AWS and then providing them more efficiency, more automation, out of the box. >> Some of your customer conversations this week, talk to us about some of the feedback. What's the common denominator amongst customers right now? >> Customers are excited. First of all, like, first event, again in person, large, right? >> Yeah. >> People can travel, people meet each other, meet in person. They have a good handle around the complexity, which used to be a huge challenge in the past, because people say, "Do I do this?" I know so many CXOs saying, "Yeah, I want to build, say, something in IoT with AWS. The first reference built it like this, the next reference built it completely different. The third one built it completely different again. So now I'm doubting if my team has the skills to build things successfully, because will they be smart enough, like your teams, because there's no repetitiveness and that repetitiveness is going to be very important for AWS to come up with some higher packaging and version numbers.", right? But customers like that message. They like that things are working better together. They're not missing the big announcement, right? One of the traditional things of AWS would be, and they made it even proud, as a system, Jassy was saying, "If we look at the IT spend and we see something which is, like, high margin for us and not served well and we announced something there, right?" So Quick Start, Workspaces, where all liaisons where AWS went after traditional IT spend and had an offering. We haven't had this in 2019, we don't have them in 2020. Last year and didn't have it now. So something is changing on the AWS side. It's a little bit too early to figure out what, but they're not chewing off as many big things as they used in the past. >> Right. >> Yep. >> Did you get the sense that... Keith Townsend, from "The CTO Advisor", was on earlier. >> Yep. >> And he said he's been to many re:Invents, as you have, and he said that he got the sense that this is Amazon's chance to do a victory lap, as he called it. That this is a way for Amazon to reinforce the leadership cloud. >> Ja. >> And really, kind of, establish that nobody can come close to them, nobody can compete with them. >> You don't think that- >> I don't think that's at all... I mean, love Keith, he's a great guy, but I don't think that's the mindset at all, right? So, I mean, Jassy was always saying, "It's still the morning of the day in the cloud.", right? They're far away from being done. They're obsessed over being right. They do more work with the analysts. We think we got something right. And I like the passion, from that perspective. So I think Amazon's far from being complacent and the area, which is the biggest bit, right, the biggest. The only thing where Amazon truly has floundered, always floundered, is the AI space, right? So, 2018, Werner Vogels was doing more technical stuff that "Oh, this is all about linear regression.", right? And Amazon didn't start to put algorithms on silicon, right? And they have a three four trail and they didn't announce anything new here, behind Google who's been doing this for much, much longer than TPU platform, so. >> But they have now. >> They're keen aware. >> Yep. >> They now have three, or they own two of their own hardware platforms for AI. >> Right. >> They support the Intel platform. They seem to be catching up in that area. >> It's very hard to catch up on hardware, right? Because, there's release cycles, right? And just the volume that, just talking about the largest models that we have right now, to do with the language models, and Google is just doing a side note of saying, "Oh, we supported 50 less or 30 less, not little spoken languages, which I've never even heard of, because they're under banked and under supported and here's the language model, right? And I think it's all about little bit the organizational DNA of a company. I'm a strong believer in that. And, you have to remember AWS comes from the retail side, right? >> Yeah. >> Their roll out of data centers follows their retail strategy. Open secret, right? But, the same thing as the scale of the AI is very very different than if you take a look over at Google where it makes sense of the internet, right? The scale right away >> Right. >> is a solution, which is a good solution for some of the DNA of AWS. Also, Microsoft Azure is good. There has no chance to even get off the ship of that at Google, right? And these leaders with Google and it's not getting smaller, right? We didn't hear anything. I mean so much focused on data. Why do they focus so much on data? Because, data is the first step for AI. If AWS was doing a victory lap, data would've been done. They would own data, right? They would have a competitor to BigQuery Omni from the Google side to get data from the different clouds. There's crickets on that topic, right? So I think they know that they're catching up on the AI side, but it's really, really hard. It's not like in software where you can't acquire someone they could acquire in video. >> Not at Core Donovan. >> Might play a game, but that's not a good idea, right? So you can't, there's no shortcuts on the hardware side. As much as I'm a software guy and love software and don't like hardware, it's always a pain, right? There's no shortcuts there and there's nothing, which I think, has a new Artanium instance, of course, certainly, but they're not catching up. The distance is the same, yep. >> One of the things is funny, one of our guests, I think it was Tuesday, it was, it was right after Adam's keynote. >> Sure. >> Said that Adam Selipsky stood up on stage and talked about data for 52 minutes. >> Yeah. Right. >> It was timed, 52 minutes. >> Right. >> Huge emphasis on that. One of the things that Adam said to John Furrier when they were able to sit down >> Yeah >> a week or so ago at an event preview, was that CIOs and CEOs are not coming to Adam to talk about technology. They want to talk about transformation. They want to talk about business transformation. >> Sure, yes, yes. >> Talk to me in our last couple of minutes about what CEOs and CIOs are coming to you saying, "Holger, help us figure this out. We have to transform the business." >> Right. So we advise, I'm going quote our friends at Gartner, once the type A company. So we'll use technology aggressively, right? So take everything in the audience with a grain of salt, followers are the laggards, and so on. So for them, it's really the cusp of doing AI, right? Getting that data together. It has to be in the cloud. We live in the air of infinite computing. The cloud makes computing infinite, both from a storage, from a compute perspective, from an AI perspective, and then define new business models and create new best practices on top of that. Because, in the past, everything was fine out on premise, right? We talked about the (indistinct) size. Now in the cloud, it's just the business model to say, "Do I want to have a little more AI? Do I want a to run a little more? Will it give me the insight in the business?". So, that's the transformation that is happening, really. So, bringing your data together, this live conversation data, but not for bringing the data together. There's often the big win for the business for the first time to see the data. AWS is banking on that. The supply chain product, as an example. So many disparate systems, bring them them together. Big win for the business. But, the win for the business, ultimately, is when you change the paradigm from the user showing up to do something, to software doing stuff for us, right? >> Right. >> We have too much in this operator paradigm. If the user doesn't show up, doesn't find the click, doesn't find where to go, nothing happens. It can't be done in the 21st century, right? Software has to look over your shoulder. >> Good point. >> Understand one for you, autonomous self-driving systems. That's what CXOs, who're future looking, will be talked to come to AWS and all the other cloud vendors. >> Got it, last question for you. We're making a sizzle reel on Instagram. >> Yeah. >> If you had, like, a phrase, like, or a 30 second pitch that would describe re:Invent 2022 in the direction the company's going. What would that elevator pitch say? >> 30 second pitch? >> Yeah. >> All right, just timing. AWS is doing well. It's providing more depth, less breadth. Making things work together. It's catching up in some areas, has some interesting offerings, like the healthcare offering, the security data lake offering, which might change some things in the industry. It's staying the course and it's going strong. >> Ah, beautifully said, Holger. Thank you so much for joining Paul and me. >> Might have been too short. I don't know. (laughs) >> About 10 seconds left over. >> It was perfect, absolutely perfect. >> Thanks for having me. >> Perfect sizzle reel. >> Appreciate it. >> We appreciate your insights, what you're seeing this week, and the direction the company is going. We can't wait to see what happens in the next year. And, yeah. >> Thanks for having me. >> And of course, we've been on so many times. We know we're going to have you back. (laughs) >> Looking forward to it, thank you. >> All right, for Holger Mueller and Paul Gillan, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching "theCube", the leader in live enterprise and emerging tech coverage. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hello, everyone. Welcome to theCUBE's coverage here at AWS re:Invent 2022. This is the Executive Summit with Accenture. I'm John Furrier, your host of theCUBE with two great guests coming on today, really talking about the future, the role of humans. Radically human is going to be the topic. Paul Daugherty, the group Chief Executive Technology and CTO at Accenture. And Jim Wilson, Global Managing Director of Thought Leadership and Technology Research, Accenture. Gentlemen, thank you for coming on theCUBE for this conversation around your new hit book, "Radically Human." >> Thanks, John. It's great to be with you and great to be present at re:Invent. >> We've been following you guys for many, many years now, over a decade. You always have the finger on the pulse. I mean, and as these waves come in, it's really important to understand impact. And more than ever, we're in this, I call it the systems thinking, revolution is going on now where things have consequences and machines are now accelerating their role. Developers are becoming the front lines of running companies, seeing a massive shift. This new technology is transforming the business and shaping our future as as humans. And so I love the book, very, very strong content, really right on point. What was the motivation for the book? And congratulations, but I noticed you got the structure, part one and part two, this book seems to be packing a big punch. What was the motivation, and what was some of the background in putting the book together? >> That's a great question, John. And I'll start, and then, Jim, my co-author and colleague and partner on the book can join in too. If you step back from the book itself, we'd written a first book called "Human + Machine", which focused a lot on artificial intelligence and talked about the potential and future of artificial intelligence to create a more human future for us with the human plus machine pairing. And then when we started working on the next book, it was the COVID era. COVID came on line as we were writing the book. And that was causing really an interesting time in technology for a lot of companies. I mean, think back to what you were doing. Once COVID hit, every company became more dependent on technology. Technology was the lifeline. And so Jim and I got interested in what the impacts of that were on companies, and what was different from the first research we had done around our first book. And what we found, which was super interesting, is that pre-pandemic, the leading companies, the digital leaders that were applying cloud data, AI, and related technologies faster, we're outperforming others by a factor of 2x. And that was before the pandemic. After the pandemic, we redid the research and the gap widened into 5x. And I think that's played a lot into our book. And we talk about that in the opening of our book. And the message there is exactly what you said is technology is not just the lifeline from the pandemic, but now technology is the heart and soul of how companies are driving innovation, how they're responding to global crises around inflation, energy, supply chain crisis because of the war in Ukraine, et cetera. And companies need the technology more than ever. And that's what we're writing about in "Radically Human." And we're taking a step beyond our previous book to talk about what we believe is next. And it's really cloud, data and AI, and the metaverse that signal out as three trends that are really driving transformative change for companies. In the first part of the book, to your question on the structure, talks about the roadmap to that. We talked about the ideas framework, five areas where you need to change your thinking, flip your assumptions on how to apply technology. And then the second part of the book talks about the differentiators that we believe are going to set companies apart as they look to implement this technology and transform their companies for the future. >> Jim, weigh in on this flipping the script, flipping the assumptions. >> You used a really important word there and that is systems. I think when we think about artificial intelligence, and when Paul and I have now talking to companies, a lot of executives think of AI as a point solution. They don't think about AI in terms of taking a systems approach. So we were trying to address that. All right, if you're going to build a roadmap, a technology roadmap for applying intelligent technologies like artificial intelligence, how do you take a holistic systematic view? And that's really the focus of the first section of the book. And then as Paul mentioned, how do you take those systems and really differentiate it using your talent, focusing on trust, experiences and sustainability? >> I like how it reads. It's almost like a masterclass book because you set the table. It's like, 'cause people right now are like in the mode of what's going on around me? I've been living through three years of COVID. We're coming out the other side. The world looks radically different. Humans are much more important. Automation's great, but people are finding out that the human's key, but people are trying to figure out where am I today. So I think the first part really to me hits home. Like, here's the current situation and then part two is here's how you can get better. And it's not just about machines, machines, machines and automation, automation, automation. We're seeing examples where the role of the human, the person in society, whether it's individually or as part of a group, are really now key assets in that kind of this new workforce or this new production system or society. >> Yeah. And just to take a couple examples from the book and highlight that, I think you're exactly right. And that's where "Radically Human", the title came from. And what's happening with technology is that technology itself is becoming more human like in its capability. When you think about the power of the transformer technologies and other things that we're reading about a lot. And the whole hypothesis or premise of the book I should say, is that the more human like the technology is, the more radically human or the more radical the human potential improvement is, the bigger the opportunity. It's pairing the two together rather than, as you said, just looking at the automation or the machine side of it. That's really the radical leap. And one thing Jim and I talked about in context of the book is companies really often haven't been radical enough in applying technology to really get to dramatic gains that they can get. Just a couple examples from the ideas framework, the I in IDEAS. The ideas framework is the first part of the book. The five areas to flip your assumptions. The I stands for intelligence and we're talking about more human and less artificial in terms of the intelligence techniques. Things like common sense learning and other techniques that allow you to develop more powerful ways of engaging people, engaging humans in the systems that we build using the kind of systems thinking that Jim mentioned. And things like emotional AI, common sense AI, new techniques in addition to machine, the big data driven machine learning techniques, which are essential to vision and solving big problems like that. So that's just an example of how you bring it together and enable that human potential. >> I love the idea, go ahead Jim. >> I was going to say we've been used to adapting to technology, and contorting our fingers to keyboards and so on for a long time. And now we're starting to see that technology is in fact beginning to adapt to us and become more natural in many instances. One point that we make is now in the human technology nexus, in fact, the human is in the ascended. That's one of the big ideas that we try to put out there in this book. >> I love the idea of flipping the script, flipping the assumptions, but ideas framework is interesting. I for intelligence, D for data, E for expertise, A for architecture, S for strategy. Notice the strategies last. Normally in the old school days, it's like, hey, strategy first and execution. Really interesting how you guys put that together. It feels like business is becoming agile and iterative and how it's going to be forming. Can you guys, I mean that's my opinion, but I think observing how developers becoming much more part of the app. I mean, if you take digital transformation to its conclusion, the application is the company, It's not a department serving the business, it is the business, therefore developers are running the business, so to speak. This is really radical. I mean, this is how I'm seeing it. What's your reaction to that? Do you see similar parallels to this transformation if you take it down to a conclusion and strategy is just what you do after you get the outcomes you need? What's your reaction to that? >> Yeah, I think one of the most lasting elements of the book might be that chapter on strategy in my opinion, because you need to think about it differently. The old way of doing strategy is dead. You can't do it the way you used to do it. And that's what we tried to lay out with the S in IDEAS, the strategy. The subtitle that chapter is we're all technology companies now. And if you're a technology driven company, the way you need to think about and every company is becoming, that's what I hear when I talk to these suites and CEOs and boards, is everybody's recognizing the essential role that technology plays and therefore they need to master technology. Well, you need to think about strategy differently then because of the pace of technology innovation. And so you need to throw out the old way of doing it. We suggest three new archetypes of how to do strategy that I think are really important. It's about continuous strategy in all cases. An example is one of the techniques we talk about, forever beta, which is, think about a Tesla or companies that it's never quite done. They're always improving and the product is designed to be connected and improving. So it changes along the product and the strategy along how you deploy it to consumers changes as you go. And that's an example of a very different approach to strategy that we believe is essential to consider as you look at the future. Yeah, those multi-month strategy sessions might play out over two or three quarters of going away. And strategy and execution are becoming almost simultaneous these days as Paul was saying. >> It's interesting because that's the trend you're seeing with more data, more automation, but the human plays a much critical role. And just aside on the Tesla example, is well documented. I think I wrote about in a post just this week that during the model three, Elon wanted full automation and had to actually go off scripts and get to humans back in charge 'cause it wasn't working properly. Now they have a balance. But that brings up to part two, which I like, which is this human piece of it. We always talk about skills gaps, there's not enough people to do this, that and the other thing. And talent was a big part of that second half, trust, talent, experiences. That's more of the person's role, either individually as part of a collective group. Is talent the scarce resource now where that's the goal, that's the key 'cause it all could point to that in a way. Skills gap points to, hey, humans are valuable. In fact the value's going up if it's properly architected. What's your reaction to that, guys? Because I think that's something that is not, kind of nuanced point, but it's a feature, not a bug maybe, I don't know. What's your thoughts? >> Yeah, go ahead Jim. >> I was going to say it, we're dramatically underestimating the amount of focus we need to put on talent. That's why we start off that second part of the book, really zooming in on talent. I think you might think that for every hundred dollars that you put into a technology initiative, you might put 50 or 75 into re-skilling initiatives to really compliment that. But what we're seeing is companies need to be much more revolutionary in their focus on talent. We saw economic analysis recently that pointed out that for every $1 you spend on technology, you are likely going to need to spend about $9 on intangible human capital. That means on talent, on getting the best talent, on re-skilling and on changing processes and work tasks. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done. Really that's human focus. It's not just about adopting the technology. Certainly the technology's critical, but we're underestimating the amount of focus that needs to go into the talent factors. >> That's a huge point. >> And I think some of the elements of talent that become really critical that we talked about in the book are becoming a talent creator. We believe the successful companies of the future are going to be able not just to post a job opening and hire people in because there's not going to be enough. And a lot of the jobs that companies are creating don't exist 'cause the technology changing so fast. So the companies that succeed are going to know how to create talent, bring in people, apprentices and such, and shape to tale as they go. We're doing a significant amount of that in our own company. They're going to be learning based organizations where you'll differentiate, you'll get the best employees if you provide better learning environments because that's what employees want. And then democratizing access to technology. Things like Amazon's Honeycode is an example, low-code/no-code development to spread development to wider pools of people. Those types of things are really critical going forward to really unlock the talent potential. And really what you end up with is, yeah, the human talent's important, but it's magnified and multiplied by the power of people, giving them in essence superpowers in using technology in new ways. >> I think you nailed it, that's super important. That point about the force multiplier when you put things in combination, whether it's group constructs, two pizza teams flexing, leveraging the talent. I mean, this is a new configuration. You guys are nailing it there. I love that piece. And I think groups and collectives you're going to start to see a lot more of that. But again, with talent comes trust when you start to have these ephemeral and or forming groups that are forming production systems or experiences. So trust comes up a lot. You guys see the metaverse as an important part there. Obviously metaverse is a pretext to the virtual world where we're going to start to create these group experiences and create new force multipliers. How does the metaverse play into this new radically human world, and what does it mean for the future of business? >> Yeah, I think the metaverse is radically misunderstood to use the word title when we're not with the title of our book. And we believe that the metaverse does have real big potential, massive potential, and I think it'll transform the way we think about digital more so than we've changed our thinking on digital in the last 10 years. So that's the potential of the metaverse. And it's not just about the consumer things, it's about metaverse and the enterprise. It's about the new products you create using distributed ledger and other technologies. And it's about the industrial metaverse of how you bring digital twins and augmented workers online in different ways. And so I believe that it has tremendous potential. We write about that in the book and it really takes radically human to another level. And one way to think about this is cloud is really becoming the operating system of business. You have to build your enterprise around the cloud as you go forward. That's going to shape the way you do business. AI becomes the insight and intelligence in how you work, infused with the human talent and such as we said. And the metaverse then reshapes the experience layers. So you have cloud, AI building on top of this metaverse providing a new way to generate experiences for employees, citizens, consumers, et cetera. And that's the way it unfolds, but trust becomes more important because just as AI raises new questions around trust, every technology raises new questions around trust. The metaverse raises a whole new set of questions. And in the book we outline a five-part framework or five essential parts of the framework around how you establish trust as you implement these new technologies. >> Yeah, we're seeing that about three quarters of companies are really trying to figure out trust, certainly with issues like the metaverse more broadly across their IT so they're focusing on security and privacy, transparency, especially when you're talking about AI systems, explainability. One of the more surprising things that we learned when doing the book, when we were doing the research is that we saw that increasingly consumers and employees want systems to be informed by a sense of humanity. So one company that we've been looking at that's been developing autonomous vehicles, self-driving car systems, they're actually training the system by emulating human behavior. So turning the cameras on test drivers to see how they learn and then training the AI using that sense of humanity 'cause other drivers on the road find human behavior more trustworthy. And similarly, that system is also using explainable AI to actually show which human behaviors that AI system is learning from. Some really interesting innovations happening in that trust space. John. >> Jim, I think you bring up a great point that's worth talking more about. Because you're talking about how human behaviors are being put into the design of new things like machines or software. And we're living in this era of cloud scale, which is compressing this transformation timeline and we've been calling it supercloud, some call it multi-cloud, but it's really a new thing happening where you're seeing an acceleration of the transformation. We think it's going to happen much faster in the next five to 10 years. And so that means these new things are emerging, not just, hey, I'm running a virtual event with chat and some video. It's group behavior, it's groups convening, talking, getting things done, debating, doing things differently. And so this idea of humans informing design decisions or software with low-code/no-code, this completely changes strategy. I mean this is a big point of the book. >> Yeah, no, I go back to one of the, the E in the IDEAS framework is expertise. And we talk about from machine learning to machine teaching, which is exactly that. Machine learning is maybe humans tag data and stuff and feed into algorithms. Machine teaching is how do you really leverage the human expertise in the systems that you develop with AI. One of the examples we give is one of the large consumer platforms that uses human designers to give the system a sense of aesthetic design and product design. A very difficult thing, especially with changing fashion interest and everything else to encode in algorithms and to even have AI do, even if you have fast amounts of data, but with the right human insight and human expertise injected in, you can create amazing new capability that responds to consumers in a much more powerful way. And that's an example of what you just said, John, bringing the two together. >> Well, yeah, it's interesting. I want to to get your thoughts as we get wrap up here soon. How do you apply all these human-centric technologies to the future of business? As you guys talk to leaders in the enterprise of their businesses, as they look at the horizon, they see the the future. They got to start thinking about things like generative AI and how they can bring some of these technologies to the table. We were talking about if open source continues to grow the way it's going, there might not be any code to write, it just writes itself at some point. So you got supply chain issues with security. These are new things you guys are hitting in the book where these are new dynamics, new power dynamics in how things get built. So if you're a business owner and leader, this is a new opportunity, a challenge certainly that is an opportunity. How do you apply all this stuff for business? >> I'll go first then Jim can add in. But the first thing I think starts with recognizing the role that technology does play and investing accordingly in it. So the right technology talent, rethinking the way you do strategy as we talked about earlier and recognizing how you need to build a foundation. That's why the fact you're at re:Invent is so important because companies are, again, rebuilding that operating system of their business in the cloud. And you need that as the foundation to go forward, to do, to build the other types of capabilities. And then I think it's developing those talent systems as well. Do you have the right talent brand? Are you attracting the right employees? Are you developing them in the right way so that you have the right future talent going forward? And then you marry the two together and that's what gives you the radically human formula. >> Yeah. When we were developing that first part of the book, Paul and I did quite a bit of research, and Paul kind of alluded to that research earlier, but one of the things that we saw in really the first year of the pandemic was that there was a lot of first time adoption of intelligent technologies like artificial intelligence. One statistic is that 70% of companies that had never tried AI before went ahead and tried it during the pandemic. So first time adoption rates were way up, but the thing is companies were not trying to do it themselves and to necessarily build an AI department. They were partnering and it's really important to find a partner, often a cloud partner as a way to get started, start small scale, and then scale up doing experiments. So that was one of the key insights that we had. You don't need to do it all yourself. >> If you see the transformation of just AWS, we're here at re:Invent, since we've been covering the events since 2013, every year there's been a thematic thing. It was startups, enterprise, now builders, and now change your company. This year it's continuing that same thing where you're starting to see new things happen. It's not just lift and shift and running a SaaS application on the cloud. People are are changing and refactoring and replatforming categorical applications in for this new era. And we're calling it supercloud, superservices, superapps, 'cause they're different. They're doing different things in leveraging large scale CapEx, large scale talent pools, or talent pools in certain ways. So this is real, something's happening here and we've been talking about it a lot lately. So I have to ask you guys, how does a company know if they're radical enough? Like what is radical? How can I put a pin in that? It's like take a temperature or we like radical enough, what some tell signs can you guys share for companies that are really leaning into this new next inflection point because there are new things happening? How do you know if you're you're pushing the envelope radical enough to take advantage? >> Yeah, I think one. >> You can go ahead, Paul. >> Yeah, I was going to say one of the tests is the impact on your business. You have to start by looking at all this in the context of your business, and is it really taking you to another level? You said it perfectly, John, it used to be we used to talk about migration and workloads to the cloud and things like that. That's still something you need to do. But now our focus with a lot of our customers is on how do you innovate and grow your business in the cloud? What's the platform that you're using for your new digital products and services you're offering to your consumers. I mean it is the business and I think that's the test whether you're being radical enough is on the one hand, are you really using the technology to drive differentiation and real growth and change in your business? And are you equipping people, your human talent with the capabilities they need to perform in very different ways? And those are the two tests that I would give. >> Totally agree. >> Interesting enough, we love this topic and you guys, again, the book is spot on. Very packs of big punch on content, but very relevant in today. And I think one of the things we're looking at is that people who do things differently take advantage of some of these radical approaches like IDEAS, your framework, and understand where they are and what's available and what's coming around the corner. They stand out in the pack or create new business opportunities because the CapEx is taken care of. Now you got your cloud, I mean you're building clouds on top of clouds or something's happening. I think you see it, look at like companies like Snowflake, it's a data warehouse on the cloud. What does that mean? They didn't build a cloud, they used Amazon. So you're starting to see these new things pop up. >> Yeah and that's a good example. And it sounds like a simple thing, data warehouse in the cloud, but the new business capability that a technology like that allows and the portability of being able to connect and use data across cloud environments and such is tremendously powerful. And I think that's why, you talk about companies doing things differently, that's why it's great, again, that you're at re:Invent. If you look at the index of our book, you'll see AWS mentioned a number of times 'cause we tell a lot of customer company stories about how they're leveraging AWS capabilities in cloud and AI to really do transformative things in their business. And I think that's what it's all about. >> Yeah, and one of the things too in the book, it's great 'cause it has the systems thinking, it's got really relevant information, but you guys have seen the movie before. I think one of the wild cards in this era is global. We're global economy, you've got regions, you've got data sovereignty, you're seeing all kinds of new things emerging. Thoughts on the global impact 'cause you take your book and you overlay that to business, like you got to operate all over the world as a human issue, as a geography issue. What's your guys take on the global impact? >> Well that's why you got to think about cloud as one technology. We talked about in the book and cloud is, I think a lot of people think, well, clouds, it's almost old news. Maybe it's been around for a while. As you said, you've been going to re:Invent since 2013. Cloud is really just getting started. And it's 'cause the reasons you said, when you look at what you need to do around sovereign cloud capability if you're in Europe. For many companies it's about multi-cloud capabilities that you need to deploy differently in different regions. And they need to, in some cases for good reason, they have hybrid cloud capability that they match on their own. And then there's the edge capability which comes into play in different ways. And so the architecture becomes very complex and we talk the A in IDEAS is architecture. We talk about all this and how you need to move from the old conception of architecture, which was more static and just modularity was the key thing you thought about. It's more the idea of a living system, of living architecture that's expanding and is what's much more dynamic. And I think that's the way you need to think about it as you manage in a global environment today with the pace of technology advancement. >> Yeah, the innovation is here. It's not stopping. How do you create some defacto standards while not stunting the innovation is going to be a big discussion as these new flipped assumptions start to generate more activity. It's going to be very interesting to watch. Gentlemen, thank you so much for spending the time here on theCUBE as we break down your new book, "Radically Human" and how business leads can flip the script on their business assumptions and put ideas and access to work. This is a big part of the cloud show at re:Invent. Thanks so much for sharing and congratulations on a great book. >> Thanks, John. And just one point I'd add is that one of the things we do talk about in talent is the need to reskill talent. People who need to be relevant in the rapidly changing future. And that's one area where I think we all as institutions, as communities and individuals need to do more is to help those that need to reskilling. And the final point I mentioned is that we've mentioned at the end of the book that all proceeds from the book are being donated to NGOs and nonprofits that are focused on reskilling those who need a skill refresh in light of the radically human change in technology that's happening. >> Great. Buy the book. Proceeds go to a great cause and it's a very relevant book. If you're in the middle of this big wave that's coming. this is a great book. There's a guidepost and also give you some great ideas to reset, reflip the scripts, refactor, replatform. Guys, thanks for coming on and sharing. I really appreciate it. Again, congratulations. >> Thanks, John. >> Thanks, John. Great discussion. >> You're watching theCUBE here covering the executive forum here at AWS re:Invent '22. I'm John Furrier, you're host with Accenture. Thanks for watching. (gentle music)

>>Hey guys and girls, welcome back to The Cube's Live coverage of AWS Reinvent 22 from Sin City. We've been here, this is our third day of coverage. We started Monday night first. Full day of the show was yesterday. Big news yesterday. Big news. Today we're hearing north of 50,000 people, and I'm hearing hundreds of thousands online. We've been having great conversations with AWS folks in the ecosystem, AWS customers, partners, ISVs, you name it. We're pleased to welcome back one of our alumni to the program, talking about partner ecosystem. Dominic Rav Vida joins us, the VP of Developer relations at single store. It's so great to have you on the program. Dominic. Thanks for coming. >>Thanks. Great. Great to see you >>Again. Great to see you too. We go way back. >>We do, yeah. >>So let's talk about reinvent 22. This is the 11th reinvent. Yeah. What are some of the things that you've heard this week that are exciting that are newsworthy from single stores perspective? >>I think in particular what we heard AWS announce on the zero ETL between Aurora and Redshift, I think it's, it's significant in that AWS has provided lots of services for building blocks for applications for a long time. And that's a great amount of flexibility for developers. But there are cases where, you know, it's a common thing to need to move data from transactional systems to analytics systems and making that easy with zero etl, I think it's a significant thing and in general we see in the market and especially in the data management market in the cloud, a unification of different types of workloads. So I think that's a step in the right direction for aws. And I think for the market as a whole, why it's significant for single store is, that's our specialty in particular, is to unify transactions and analytics for realtime applications and analytics. When you've got customer facing analytic applications and you need low latency data from realtime streaming data sources and you've gotta crunch and compute that. Those are diverse types of workloads over document transactional workloads as well as, you know, analytical workloads of various shapes and the data types could be diverse from geospatial time series. And then you've gotta serve that because we're all living in this digital service first world and you need that relevant, consistent, fresh data. And so that unification is what we think is like the big thing in data right >>Now. So validation for single store, >>It does feel like that. I mean, I'd say in the recent like six months, you've seen announcements from Google with Alloy db basically adding the complement to their workload types. You see it with Snowflake adding the complement to their traditional analytical workload site. You see it with Mongo and others. And yeah, we do feel it was validation cuz at single store we completed the functionality for what we call universal storage, which is, is the industry's first third type of storage after row store and column store, single store dbs, universal storage, unifies those. So on a single copy of data you can form these diverse workloads. And that was completed three years ago. So we sort of see like, you know, we're onto something >>Here. Welcome to the game guys. >>That's right. >>What's the value in that universal storage for customers, whether it's a healthcare organization, a financial institution, what's the value in it in those business outcomes that you guys are really helping to fuel? >>I think in short, if there were like a, a bumper sticker for that message, it's like, are you ready for the next interaction? The next interaction with your customer, the next interaction with your supply chain partner, the next interaction with your internal stakeholders, your operational managers being ready for that interaction means you've gotta have the historical data at the ready, accessible, efficiently accessible, and and, and queryable along with the most recent fresh data. And that's the context that's expected and be able to serve that instantaneously. So being ready for that next interaction is what single store helps companies do. >>Talk about single store helping customers. You know, every company these days has to be a data company. I always think, whether it's my grocery store that has all my information and helps keep me fed or a gas station or a car dealer or my bank. And we've also here, one of the things that John Furrier got to do, and he does this every year before aws, he gets to sit down with the CEO and gets really kind of a preview of what's gonna happen at at the show, right? And Adams Lisky said to him some interesting very poignant things. One is that that data, we talk about data democratization, but he says the role of the data analyst is gonna go away. Or that maybe that term in, in that every person within an organization, whether you're marketing, sales, ops, finance, is going to be analyzing data for their jobs to become data driven. Right? How does single store help customers really become data companies, especially powering data intensive apps like I know you do. >>Yeah, that's, there's a lot of talk about that and, and I think there's a lot of work that's been done with companies to make that easier to analyze data in all these different job functions. While we do that, it's not really our starting point because, and our starting point is like operationalizing that analytics as part of the business. So you can think of it in terms of database terms. Like is it batch analysis? Batch analytics after the fact, what happened last week? What happened last month? That's a lot of what those data teams are doing and those analysts are doing. What single store focuses more is in putting those insights into action for the business operations, which typically is more on the application side, it's the API side, you might call it a data product. If you're monetizing your data and you're transacting with that providing as an api, or you're delivering it as software as a service, and you're providing an end-to-end function for, you know, our marketing marketer, then we help power those kinds of real time data applications that have the interactivity and have that customer touchpoint or that partner touchpoint. So you can say we sort of, we put the data in action in that way. >>And that's the most, one of the most important things is putting data in action. If it's, it can be gold, it can be whatever you wanna call it, but if you can't actually put it into action, act on insights in real time, right? The value goes way down or there's liability, >>Right? And I think you have to do that with privacy in mind as well, right? And so you have to take control of that data and use it for your business strategy And the way that you can do that, there's technology like single store makes that possible in ways that weren't possible before. And I'll give you an example. So we have a, a customer named Fathom Analytics. They provide web analytics for marketers, right? So if you're in marketing, you understand this use case. Any demand gen marketer knows that they want to see what the traffic that hits their site is. What are the page views, what are the click streams, what are the sequences? Have these visitors to my website hit certain goals? So the big name in that for years of course has been Google Analytics and that's a free service. And you interact with that and you can see how your website's performing. >>So what Fathom does is a privacy first alternative to Google Analytics. And when you think about, well, how is that possible that they, and as a paid service, it's as software, as a service, how, first of all, how can you keep up with that real time deluge of clickstream data at the rate that Google Analytics can do it? That's the technical problem. But also at the data layer, how could you keep up with Google has, you know, in terms of databases And Fathom's answer to that is to use single store. Their, their prior architecture had four different types of database technologies under the hood. They were using Redis to have fast read time cash. They were using MySEQ database as the application database they were using. They were looking at last search to do full tech search. And they were using DynamoDB as part of a another kind of fast look up fast cash. They replaced all four of those with single store. And, and again, what they're doing is like sort of battling defacto giant in Google Analytics and having a great success at doing that for posting tens of thousands of websites. Some big names that you've heard of as well. >>I can imagine that's a big reduction from four to one, four x reduction in databases. The complexities that go away, the simplification that happens, I can imagine is quite huge for them. >>And we've done a study, an independent study with Giga Home Research. We published this back in June looking at total cost of ownership with benchmarks and the relevant benchmarks for transactions and analytics and databases are tpcc for transactions, TPC H for analytics, TPC DS for analytics. And we did a TCO study using those benchmark datas on a combination of transactional and analytical databases together and saw some pretty big improvements. 60% improvement over Myse Snowflake, for >>Instance. Awesome. Big business outcomes. We only have a few seconds left, so you've already given me a bumper sticker. Yeah. And I know I live in Silicon Valley, I've seen those billboards. I know single store has done some cheeky billboard marketing campaigns. But if you had a new billboard to create from your perspective about single store, what does it say? >>I, I think it's that, are you, are you ready for the next interaction? Because business is won and lost in every moment, in every location, in every digital moment passing by. And if you're not ready to, to interact and transact rather your systems on your behalf, then you're behind the curve. It's easy to be displaced people swipe left and pick your competitor. So I think that's the next bumper sticker. I may, I would say our, my favorite billboard so far of what we've run is cover your SaaS, which is what is how, what is the data layer to, to manage the next level of SaaS applications, the next generation. And we think single store is a big part >>Of that. Cover your SaaS. Love it. Dominic, thank you so much for joining me, giving us an update on single store from your perspective, what's going on there, kind of really where you are in the market. We appreciate that. We'll have to >>Have you back. Thank you. Glad to >>Be here. All right. For Dominic rta, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching The Cube, the leader in live, emerging and enterprise tech coverage.

>>Hey, welcome back everyone. Day three of eight of us Reinvent 2022. I'm John Farmer with Dave Volante, co-host the q Dave. 10 years for us, the leader in high tech coverage is our slogan. Now 10 years of reinvent day. We've been to every single one except with the original, which we would've come to if Amazon actually marketed the event, but they didn't. It's more of a customer event. This is day three. Is the machine learning ai keynote sws up there. A lot of announcements. We're gonna break this down. We got, we got Andy Thra here, vice President, prince Constellation Research. Andy, great to see you've been on the cube before one of our analysts bringing the, bringing the, the analysis, commentary to the keynote. This is your wheelhouse. Ai. What do you think about Swami up there? I mean, he's awesome. We love him. Big fan Oh yeah. Of of the Cuban we're fans of him, but he got 13 announcements. >>A lot. A lot, >>A lot. >>So, well some of them are, first of all, thanks for having me here and I'm glad to have both of you on the same show attacking me. I'm just kidding. But some of the announcement really sort of like a game changer announcements and some of them are like, meh, you know, just to plug in the holes what they have and a lot of golf claps. Yeah. Meeting today. And you could have also noticed that by, when he was making the announcements, you know, the, the, the clapping volume difference, you could say, which is better, right? But some of the announcements are, are really, really good. You know, particularly we talked about, one of that was Microsoft took that out of, you know, having the open AI in there, doing the large language models. And then they were going after that, you know, having the transformer available to them. And Amazon was a little bit weak in the area, so they couldn't, they don't have a large language model. So, you know, they, they are taking a different route saying that, you know what, I'll help you train the large language model by yourself, customized models. So I can provide the necessary instance. I can provide the instant volume, memory, the whole thing. Yeah. So you can train the model by yourself without depending on them kind >>Of thing. So Dave and Andy, I wanna get your thoughts cuz first of all, we've been following Amazon's deep bench on the, on the infrastructure pass. They've been doing a lot of machine learning and ai, a lot of data. It just seems that the sentiment is that there's other competitors doing a good job too. Like Google, Dave. And I've heard folks in the hallway, even here, ex Amazonians saying, Hey, they're train their models on Google than they bring up the SageMaker cuz it's better interface. So you got, Google's making a play for being that data cloud. Microsoft's obviously putting in a, a great kind of package to kind of make it turnkey. How do they really stand versus the competition guys? >>Good question. So they, you know, each have their own uniqueness and the we variation that take it to the field, right? So for example, if you were to look at it, Microsoft is known for as industry or later things that they are been going after, you know, industry verticals and whatnot. So that's one of the things I looked here, you know, they, they had this omic announcement, particularly towards that healthcare genomics space. That's a huge space for hpz related AIML applications. And they have put a lot of things in together in here in the SageMaker and in the, in their models saying that, you know, how do you, how do you use this transmit to do things like that? Like for example, drug discovery, for genomics analysis, for cancer treatment, the whole, right? That's a few volumes of data do. So they're going in that healthcare area. Google has taken a different route. I mean they want to make everything simple. All I have to do is I gotta call an api, give what I need and then get it done. But Amazon wants to go at a much deeper level saying that, you know what? I wanna provide everything you need. You can customize the whole thing for what you need. >>So to me, the big picture here is, and and Swami references, Hey, we are a data company. We started, he talked about books and how that informed them as to, you know, what books to place front and center. Here's the, here's the big picture. In my view, companies need to put data at the core of their business and they haven't, they've generally put humans at the core of their business and data. And now machine learning are at the, at the outside and the periphery. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook have put data at their core. So the question is how do incumbent companies, and you mentioned some Toyota Capital One, Bristol Myers Squibb, I don't know, are those data companies, you know, we'll see, but the challenge is most companies don't have the resources as you well know, Andy, to actually implement what Google and Facebook and others have. >>So how are they gonna do that? Well, they're gonna buy it, right? So are they gonna build it with tools that's kind of like you said the Amazon approach or are they gonna buy it from Microsoft and Google, I pulled some ETR data to say, okay, who are the top companies that are showing up in terms of spending? Who's spending with whom? AWS number one, Microsoft number two, Google number three, data bricks. Number four, just in terms of, you know, presence. And then it falls down DataRobot, Anaconda data icu, Oracle popped up actually cuz they're embedding a lot of AI into their products and, and of course IBM and then a lot of smaller companies. But do companies generally customers have the resources to do what it takes to implement AI into applications and into workflows? >>So a couple of things on that. One is when it comes to, I mean it's, it's no surprise that the, the top three or the hyperscalers, because they all want to bring their business to them to run the specific workloads on the next biggest workload. As you was saying, his keynote are two things. One is the A AIML workloads and the other one is the, the heavy unstructured workloads that he was talking about. 80%, 90% of the data that's coming off is unstructured. So how do you analyze that? Such as the geospatial data. He was talking about the volumes of data you need to analyze the, the neural deep neural net drug you ought to use, only hyperscale can do it, right? So that's no wonder all of them on top for the data, one of the things they announced, which not many people paid attention, there was a zero eight L that that they talked about. >>What that does is a little bit of a game changing moment in a sense that you don't have to, for example, if you were to train the data, data, if the data is distributed everywhere, if you have to bring them all together to integrate it, to do that, it's a lot of work to doing the dl. So by taking Amazon, Aurora, and then Rich combine them as zero or no ETL and then have Apaches Apaches Spark applications run on top of analytical applications, ML workloads. That's huge. So you don't have to move around the data, use the data where it is, >>I, I think you said it, they're basically filling holes, right? Yeah. They created this, you know, suite of tools, let's call it. You might say it's a mess. It's not a mess because it's, they're really powerful but they're not well integrated and now they're starting to take the seams as I say. >>Well yeah, it's a great point. And I would double down and say, look it, I think that boring is good. You know, we had that phase in Kubernetes hype cycle where it got boring and that was kind of like, boring is good. Boring means we're getting better, we're invisible. That's infrastructure that's in the weeds, that's in between the toes details. It's the stuff that, you know, people we have to get done. So, you know, you look at their 40 new data sources with data Wrangler 50, new app flow connectors, Redshift Auto Cog, this is boring. Good important shit Dave. The governance, you gotta get it and the governance is gonna be key. So, so to me, this may not jump off the page. Adam's keynote also felt a little bit of, we gotta get these gaps done in a good way. So I think that's a very positive sign. >>Now going back to the bigger picture, I think the real question is can there be another independent cloud data cloud? And that's the, to me, what I try to get at my story and you're breaking analysis kind of hit a home run on this, is there's interesting opportunity for an independent data cloud. Meaning something that isn't aws, that isn't, Google isn't one of the big three that could sit in. And so let me give you an example. I had a conversation last night with a bunch of ex Amazonian engineering teams that left the conversation was interesting, Dave. They were like talking, well data bricks and Snowflake are basically batch, okay, not transactional. And you look at Aerospike, I can see their booth here. Transactional data bases are hot right now. Streaming data is different. Confluence different than data bricks. Is data bricks good at hosting? >>No, Amazon's better. So you start to see these kinds of questions come up where, you know, data bricks is great, but maybe not good for this, that and the other thing. So you start to see the formation of swim lanes or visibility into where people might sit in the ecosystem, but what came out was transactional. Yep. And batch the relationship there and streaming real time and versus you know, the transactional data. So you're starting to see these new things emerge. Andy, what do you, what's your take on this? You're following this closely. This seems to be the alpha nerd conversation and it all points to who's gonna have the best data cloud, say data, super clouds, I call it. What's your take? >>Yes, data cloud is important as well. But also the computational that goes on top of it too, right? Because when, when the data is like unstructured data, it's that much of a huge data, it's going to be hard to do that with a low model, you know, compute power. But going back to your data point, the training of the AIML models required the batch data, right? That's when you need all the, the historical data to train your models. And then after that, when you do inference of it, that's where you need the streaming real time data that's available to you too. You can make an inference. One of the things, what, what they also announced, which is somewhat interesting, is you saw that they have like 700 different instances geared towards every single workload. And there are some of them very specifically run on the Amazon's new chip. The, the inference in two and theran tr one chips that basically not only has a specific instances but also is run on a high powered chip. And then if you have that data to support that, both the training as well as towards the inference, the efficiency, again, those numbers have to be proven. They claim that it could be anywhere between 40 to 60% faster. >>Well, so a couple things. You're definitely right. I mean Snowflake started out as a data warehouse that was simpler and it's not architected, you know, in and it's first wave to do real time inference, which is not now how, how could they, the other second point is snowflake's two or three years ahead when it comes to governance, data sharing. I mean, Amazon's doing what always does. It's copying, you know, it's customer driven. Cuz they probably walk into an account and they say, Hey look, what's Snowflake's doing for us? This stuff's kicking ass. And they go, oh, that's a good idea, let's do that too. You saw that with separating compute from storage, which is their tiering. You saw it today with extending data, sharing Redshift, data sharing. So how does Snowflake and data bricks approach this? They deal with ecosystem. They bring in ecosystem partners, they bring in open source tooling and that's how they compete. I think there's unquestionably an opportunity for a data cloud. >>Yeah, I think, I think the super cloud conversation and then, you know, sky Cloud with Berkeley Paper and other folks talking about this kind of pre, multi-cloud era. I mean that's what I would call us right now. We are, we're kind of in the pre era of multi-cloud, which by the way is not even yet defined. I think people use that term, Dave, to say, you know, some sort of magical thing that's happening. Yeah. People have multiple clouds. They got, they, they end up by default, not by design as Dell likes to say. Right? And they gotta deal with it. So it's more of they're inheriting multiple cloud environments. It's not necessarily what they want in the situation. So to me that is a big, big issue. >>Yeah, I mean, again, going back to your snowflake and data breaks announcements, they're a data company. So they, that's how they made their mark in the market saying that, you know, I do all those things, therefore you have, I had to have your data because it's a seamless data. And, and Amazon is catching up with that with a lot of that announcements they made, how far it's gonna get traction, you know, to change when I to say, >>Yeah, I mean to me, to me there's no doubt about Dave. I think, I think what Swamee is doing, if Amazon can get corner the market on out of the box ML and AI capabilities so that people can make it easier, that's gonna be the end of the day tell sign can they fill in the gaps. Again, boring is good competition. I don't know mean, mean I'm not following the competition. Andy, this is a real question mark for me. I don't know where they stand. Are they more comprehensive? Are they more deeper? Are they have deeper services? I mean, obviously shows to all the, the different, you know, capabilities. Where, where, where does Amazon stand? What's the process? >>So what, particularly when it comes to the models. So they're going at, at a different angle that, you know, I will help you create the models we talked about the zero and the whole data. We'll get the data sources in, we'll create the model. We'll move the, the whole model. We are talking about the ML ops teams here, right? And they have the whole functionality that, that they built ind over the year. So essentially they want to become the platform that I, when you come in, I'm the only platform you would use from the model training to deployment to inference, to model versioning to management, the old s and that's angle they're trying to take. So it's, it's a one source platform. >>What about this idea of technical debt? Adrian Carro was on yesterday. John, I know you talked to him as well. He said, look, Amazon's Legos, you wanna buy a toy for Christmas, you can go out and buy a toy or do you wanna build a, to, if you buy a toy in a couple years, you could break and what are you gonna do? You're gonna throw it out. But if you, if you, if part of your Lego needs to be extended, you extend it. So, you know, George Gilbert was saying, well, there's a lot of technical debt. Adrian was countering that. Does Amazon have technical debt or is that Lego blocks analogy the right one? >>Well, I talked to him about the debt and one of the things we talked about was what do you optimize for E two APIs or Kubernetes APIs? It depends on what team you're on. If you're on the runtime gene, you're gonna optimize for Kubernetes, but E two is the resources you want to use. So I think the idea of the 15 years of technical debt, I, I don't believe that. I think the APIs are still hardened. The issue that he brings up that I think is relevant is it's an end situation, not an or. You can have the bag of Legos, which is the primitives and build a durable application platform, monitor it, customize it, work with it, build it. It's harder, but the outcome is durability and sustainability. Building a toy, having a toy with those Legos glued together for you, you can get the play with, but it'll break over time. Then you gotta replace it. So there's gonna be a toy business and there's gonna be a Legos business. Make your own. >>So who, who are the toys in ai? >>Well, out of >>The box and who's outta Legos? >>The, so you asking about what what toys Amazon building >>Or, yeah, I mean Amazon clearly is Lego blocks. >>If people gonna have out the box, >>What about Google? What about Microsoft? Are they basically more, more building toys, more solutions? >>So Google is more of, you know, building solutions angle like, you know, I give you an API kind of thing. But, but if it comes to vertical industry solutions, Microsoft is, is is ahead, right? Because they have, they have had years of indu industry experience. I mean there are other smaller cloud are trying to do that too. IBM being an example, but you know, the, now they are starting to go after the specific industry use cases. They think that through, for example, you know the medical one we talked about, right? So they want to build the, the health lake, security health lake that they're trying to build, which will HIPPA and it'll provide all the, the European regulations, the whole line yard, and it'll help you, you know, personalize things as you need as well. For example, you know, if you go for a certain treatment, it could analyze you based on your genome profile saying that, you know, the treatment for this particular person has to be individualized this way, but doing that requires a anomalous power, right? So if you do applications like that, you could bring in a lot of the, whether healthcare, finance or what have you, and then easy for them to use. >>What's the biggest mistake customers make when it comes to machine intelligence, ai, machine learning, >>So many things, right? I could start out with even the, the model. Basically when you build a model, you, you should be able to figure out how long that model is effective. Because as good as creating a model and, and going to the business and doing things the right way, there are people that they leave the model much longer than it's needed. It's hurting your business more than it is, you know, it could be things like that. Or you are, you are not building a responsibly or later things. You are, you are having a bias and you model and are so many issues. I, I don't know if I can pinpoint one, but there are many, many issues. Responsible ai, ethical ai. All >>Right, well, we'll leave it there. You're watching the cube, the leader in high tech coverage here at J three at reinvent. I'm Jeff, Dave Ante. Andy joining us here for the critical analysis and breaking down the commentary. We'll be right back with more coverage after this short break.