(upbeat music) >> Hello, everyone; I'm John Furrier with SiliconANGLE NEWS and host of theCUBE, and welcome to our SiliconANGLE NEWS MWC NEWS UPDATE in Barcelona where MWC is the premier event for the cloud telecommunication industry, and in the news here is Red Hat, Red Hat announcing a collaboration with NVIDIA, Samsung and Arm on Efficient Open Networks. Red Hat announced updates across various fields including advanced 5G telecommunications cloud, industrial edge, artificial intelligence, and radio access networks, RAN, and Efficiency. Red Hat's enterprise Kubernetes platform, OpenShift, has added support for NVIDIA's converged accelerators and aerial SDK facilitating RAND deployments on industry standard service across hybrid and multicloud platforms. This composable infrastructure enables telecom firms to support heavier compute demands for edge computing, AI, private 5G, and more, and just also helps network operators adopt open architectures, allowing them to choose non-proprietary components from multiple suppliers. In addition to the NVIDIA collaboration, Red Hat is working with Samsung to offer a new vRAN solution for service providers to better manage their open RAN networks. They're also working with UK chip designer, Arm, to create new networking solutions for energy efficient Red Hat Open Source Kubernetes-based Efficient Power Level Exporter project, or Kepler, has been donated to the open Cloud Native Compute Foundation, allowing enterprise to better understand their cloud native workloads and power consumptions. Kepler can also help in the development of sustainable software by creating less power hungry applications. Again, Red Hat continuing to provide OpenSource, OpenRAN, and contributing an open source project to the CNCF, continuing to create innovation for developers, and, of course, Red Hat knows what, a lot about operating systems and the telco could be the next frontier. That's SiliconANGLE NEWS. I'm John Furrier; thanks for watching. (monotone music)

>> Narrator: theCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies, creating technologies that drive human progress. (upbeat music) >> Welcome back to the Fira in Barcelona. This is Dave Vellante with David Nicholson. Lisa Martin is also here. This is day two of our coverage of MWC 23 on theCUBE. We're super excited. We're in between hall four and five. Stop by if you're here. Dennis Hoffman is here. He's the senior vice president and general manager of the Telecom systems business at Dell Technologies, and he's joined by Yousef Khalidi, who's the corporate vice president of Azure for Operators from Microsoft. Gents, Welcome. >> Thanks, Dave. >> Thank you. >> So we saw Satya in the keynote. He wired in. We saw T.K. came in. No AWS. I don't know. They're maybe not part of the show, but maybe next year they'll figure it out. >> Indeed, indeed. >> Lots of stuff happened in the Telecom, but the Azure operator distributed service is the big news, you guys got here. What's that all about? >> Oh, first of all, we changed the name. >> Oh, you did? >> You did? >> Oh, yeah. We have a real name now. It's called the Azure Operator Nexus. >> Oh, I like Nexus better than that. >> David: That's much better, much better. >> Dave: The engineers named it first time around. >> I wish, long story, but thank you for our marketing team. But seriously, not only did we rename the platform, we expanded the platform. >> Dave: Yeah. >> So it now covers the whole spectrum from the far-edge to the public cloud as well, including the near-edge as well. So essentially, it's a hybrid platform that can also run network functions. So all these operators around you, they now have a platform which combines cloud technologies with the choice where they want to run, optimized for the network. >> Okay and so, you know, we've talked about the disaggregation of the network and how you're bringing kind of engineered systems to the table. We've seen this movie before, but Dennis, there are differences, right? I mean, you didn't really have engineered systems in the 90s. You didn't have those integration points. You really didn't have the public cloud, you didn't have AI. >> Right. >> So you have all those new powers that you can tap, so give us the update from your perspective, having now spent a day and a half here. What's the vibe, what's the buzz, and what's your take on everything? >> Yeah, I think to build on what Yousef said, there's a lot going on with people still trying to figure out exactly how to architect the Telecom network of the future. They know it's got to have a lot to do with cloud. It does have some pretty significant differences, one of those being, there's definitely got to be a hybrid component because there are pieces of the Telecom network that even when modernized will not end up centralized, right? They're going to be highly distributed. I would say though, you know, we took away two things, yesterday, from all the meetings. One, people are done, I think the network operators are done, questioning technology readiness. They're now beginning to wrestle with operationalization of it all, right? So it's like, okay, it's here. I can in fact build a modern network in a very cloud native way, but I've got to figure out how to do that all. And another big part of it is the ecosystem and certainly the partnership long standing between Dell and Microsoft which we're extending into this space is part of that, making it easier on people to actually acquire, deploy, and importantly, support these new technologies. >> So a lot of the traditional carriers, like you said, they're sort of beyond the technology readiness. Jose Maria Alvarez in the keynote said there are three pillars to the future Telecom network. He said low latency, programmable networks, and then cloud and edge, kind of threw that in. You agree with that, Yousef? (Dave and Yousef speaking altogether) >> I mean, we've been for years talking about the cloud and edge. >> Yeah. >> Satya for years had the same graphic. We still have it. Today, we have expanded the graphic a bit to include the network as one, because you can have a cloud without connectivity as well but this is very, very, very, very much true. >> And so the question then, Dennis, is okay, you've got disruptors, we had Dish on yesterday. >> Oh, did you? Good. >> Yeah, yeah, and they're talking about what they're doing with, you know, ORAN and all the applications, really taking account of it. What I see is a developer friendly, you know, environment. You got the carriers talking about how they're going to charge developers for APIs. I think they've published eight APIs which is nowhere near enough. So you've got that sort of, you know, inertia and yet, you have the disruptors that are going to potentially be a catalyst to, you know, cross the chasm, if you will. So, you know, put on your strategy hat. >> Yeah. >> Dave: How do you see that playing out? >> Well, they're trying to tap into three things, the disruptors. You know, I think the thesis is, "If I get to a truly cloud native, communications network first, I ought to have greater agility so that I can launch more services and create more revenue streams. I ought to be lower cost in terms of both acquisition cost and operating cost, right, and I ought to be able to create scale between my IT organization, everything I know how to do there and my Telecom network." You know, classic, right? Better, faster, cheaper if I embrace cloud early on. And people like Dish, you know, they have a clean sheet of paper with which to do that. So innovation and rate of innovation is huge for them. >> So what would you do? We put your Clay Christensen hat on, now. What if you were at a traditional Telco who's like, complaining about- >> You're going to get me in trouble. >> Dave: Come on, come on. >> Don't do it. >> Dave: Help him out. Help him out, help him out. So if, you know, they're complaining about CapEx, they're highly regulated, right, they want net neutrality but they want to be able to sort of dial up the cost of those using the network. So what would you do? Would you try to disrupt yourself? Would you create a skunkworks? Would you kind of spin off a disruptor? That's a real dilemma for those guys. >> Well for mobile network operators, the beauty of 5G is it's the first cloud native cellular standard. So I don't know if anybody's throwing these terms around, but 5G SA is standalone, right? >> Dave: Yeah, yeah. >> So a lot of 'em, it's not a skunkworks. They're just literally saying, "I've got to have a 5G network." And some of 'em are deciding, "I'm going to stand it up all by itself." Now, that's duplicative expense in a lot of ways, but it creates isolation from the two networks. Others are saying, "No, it's got to be NSA. I've got to be able to combine 4G and 5G." And then you're into the brownfield thing. >> That's the hybrid. >> Not hybrid as in cloud, but hybrid as in, you know. >> Yeah, yeah. >> It's a converge network. >> Dave: Yeah, yeah. >> So, you know, I would say for a lot of them, they're adopting, probably rightly so, a wait and see attitude. One thing we haven't talked about and you got to get on the table, their high order bit is resilience. >> Dave: Yeah, totally. >> David: Yeah. >> Right? Can't go down. It's national, secure infrastructure, first responder. >> Indeed. >> Anytime you ask them to embrace any new technology, the first thing that they have to work through in their minds is, you know, "Is the juice worth the squeeze? Like, can I handle the risk?" >> But you're saying they're not questioning the technology. Aren't they questioning ORAN in terms of the quality of service, or are they beyond that? >> Dennis: They're questioning the timing, not the inevitability. >> Okay, so they agree that ORAN is going to be open over time. >> At some point, RAN will be cloud native, whether it's ORAN the spec, open RAN the concept, (Yousef speaking indistinctly) >> Yeah. >> Virtual RAN. But yeah, I mean I think it seems pretty evident at this point that the mainframe will give way to open systems once again. >> Dave: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> ERAN, ecosystem RAN. >> Any RAN. (Dave laughing) >> You don't have to start with the ORAN where they're inside the house. So as you probably know, our partner AT&T started with the core. >> Dennis: They almost all have. >> And they've been on the virtualization path since 2014 and 15. And what we are working with them on is the hybrid cloud model to expand all the way, if you will, as I mentioned to the far-edge or the public cloud. So there's a way to be in the brownfield environment, yet jump on the new bandwagon of technology without necessarily taking too much risk, because you're quite right. I mean, resiliency, security, service assurance, I mean, for example, AT&T runs the first responder network for the US on their network, on our platform, and I'm personally very familiar of how high the bar is. So it's doable, but you need to go in stages, of course. >> And they've got to do that integration. >> Yes. >> They do. >> And Yousef made a great point. Like, out of the top 30 largest Telcos by CapEx outside of China, three quarters of them have virtualized their core. So the cloudification, if you will, software definition run on industry standard hardware, embraced cloud native principles, containerized apps, that's happened in the core. It's well accepted. Now it's just a ripple-down through the network which will happen as and when things are faster, better, cheaper. >> Right. >> So as implemented, what does this look like? Is it essentially what we used to loosely refer to as Azure stacked software, running with Dell optimized Telecom infrastructure together, sometimes within a BBU, out in a hybrid cloud model communicating back to Azure locations in some cases? Is that what we're looking at? >> Approximately. So you start with the near-edge, okay? So the near-edge lives in the operator's data centers, edges, whatever the case may be, built out of off the shelf hardware. Dell is our great partner there but in principle, it could be different mix and match. So once you have that true near-edge, then you can think of, "Okay, how can I make sure this environment is as uniform, same APIs, same everything, regardless what the physical location is?" And this is key, key for the network function providers and the NEPs because they need to be able to port once, run everywhere, and it's key for the operator to reduce their costs. You want to teach your workforce, your operations folks, if you will, how to manage this system one time, to automation and so forth. So, and that is actually an expansion of the Azure capabilities that people are familiar with in a public cloud, projected into different locations. And we have technology called Arc which basically models everything. >> Yeah, yeah. >> So if you have trained your IT side, you are halfway there, how to manage your new network. Even though of course the network is carrier graded, there's different gear. So yes, what you said, a lot of it is true but the actual components, whatever they might be running, are carrier grade, highly optimized, the next images and our solution is not a DIY solution, okay? I know you cater to a wide spectrum here but for us, we don't believe in the TCO. The proper TCO can be achieved by just putting stuff by yourself. We just published a report with Analysys Mason that shows that our approach will save 36 percent of the cost compared to a DIY approach. >> Dave: What percent? >> 36 percent. >> Dave: Of the cost? >> Of, compared to DIY, which is already cheaper than classical models. >> And there's a long history of fairly failed DIY, right, >> Yeah. >> That preceded this. As in the early days of public cloud, the network operators wrestled with, "Do I have to become one to survive?" >> Dave: Yeah. Right. >> So they all ended up having cloud projects and by and large, they've all dematerialized in favor of this. >> Yeah, and it's hard for them to really invest at scale. Let me give you an example. So, your biggest tier one operator, without naming anybody, okay, how many developers do they have that can build and maintain an OS image, or can keep track of container technology, or build monitoring at scale? In our company, we have literally thousands of developers doing it already for the cloud and all we're doing for the operator segment is customizing it and focusing it at the carrier grade aspects of it. But so, I don't have half a dozen exterior experts. I literally have a building of developers who can do that and I'm being literal, here. So it's a scale thing. Once you have a product that you can give to multiple people, everybody benefits. >> Dave: Yeah, and the carriers are largely, they're equipment engineers in a large setting. >> Oh, they have a tough job. I always have total respect what they do. >> Oh totally, and a lot of the work happens, you know, kind of underground and here they are. >> They are network operators. >> They don't touch. >> It's their business. >> Right, absolutely, and they're good at it. They're really good at it. That's right. You know, you think about it, we love to, you know, poke fun at the big carriers, but think about what happened during the pandemic. When they had us shift everything to remote work, >> Dennis: Yes. >> Landline traffic went through the roof. You didn't even notice. >> Yep. That's very true. >> I mean, that's the example. >> That's very true. >> However, in the future where there's innovation and it's going to be driven by developers, right, that's where the open ecosystem comes in. >> Yousef: Indeed. >> And that's the hard transition for a lot of these folks because the developers are going to win that with new workloads, new applications that we can't even think of. >> Dennis: Right. And a lot of it is because if you look at it, there's the fundamental back strategy hat back on, fundamental dynamics of the industry, forced investment, flat revenues. >> Dave: Yeah. Right. >> Very true. >> Right? Every few years, a new G comes out. "Man, I got to retool this massive thing and where I can't do towers, I'm dropping fiber or vice a versa." And meanwhile, most diversification efforts into media have failed. They've had to unwind them and resell them. There's a lot of debt in the industry. >> Yousef: Yeah. >> Dennis: And so, they're looking for that next big, adjacent revenue stream and increasingly deciding, "If I don't modernize my network, I can't get it." >> Can't do it. >> Right, and again, what I heard from some of the carriers in the keynote was, "We're going to charge for API access 'cause we have data in the network." Okay, but I feel like there's a lot more innovation beyond that that's going to come from the disruptors. >> Dennis: Oh yeah. >> Yousef: Yes. >> You know, that's going to blow that away, right? And then that may not be the right model. We'll see, you know? I mean, what would Microsoft do? They would say, "Here, here's a platform. Go develop." >> No, I'll tell you. We are actually working with CAMARA and GSMA on the whole API layer. We actually announced a service as well as (indistinct). >> Dave: Yeah, yeah, right. >> And the key there, frankly, in my opinion, are not the disruptors as in operators. It's the ISV community. You want to get developers that can write to a global set of APIs, not per Telco APIs, such that they can do the innovation. I mean, this is what we've seen in other industries, >> Absolutely. >> That I critically can think of. >> This is the way they get a slice of that pie, right? The recent history of this industry is one where 4G LTE begot the smartphone and app store era, a bevy of consumer services, and almost every single profit stream went somewhere other than the operator, right? >> Yousef: Someone else. So they're looking at this saying, "Okay, 5G is the enterprise G and there's going to be a bevy of applications that are business service related, based on 5G capability and I can't let the OTT, over the top, thing happen again." >> Right. >> They'll say that. "We cannot let this happen." >> "We can't let this happen again." >> Okay, but how do they, >> Yeah, how do they make that not happen? >> Not let it happen again? >> Eight APIs, Dave. The answer is eight APIs. No, I mean, it's this approach. They need to make it easy to work with people like Yousef and more importantly, the developer community that people like Yousef and his company have found a way to harness. And by the way, they need to be part of that developer community themselves. >> And they're not, today. They're not speaking that developer language. >> Right. >> It's hard. You know, hey. >> Dennis: Hey, what's the fastest way to sell an enterprise, a business service? Resell Azure, Teams, something, right? But that's a resale. >> Yeah, that's a resale thing. >> See, >> That's not their service. >> They also need to free their resources from all the plumbing they do and leave it to us. We are plumbers, okay? >> Dennis: We are proud plumbers. >> We are proud plumbers. I'm a plumber. I keep telling people this thing. We had the same discussion with banks and enterprises 10 years ago, by the way. Don't do the plumbing. Go add value on the top. Retool your workforce to do applications and work with ISVs to the verticals, as opposed to either reselling, which many do, or do the plumbing. You'd be surprised. Traditionally, many operators do around, "I want to plumb this thing to get this small interrupt per second." Like, who cares? >> Well, 'cause they made money on connectivity. >> Yes. >> And we've seen this before. >> And in a world without telephone poles and your cables- >> Hey, if what you have is a hammer, everything's a nail, right? And we sell connectivity services and that's what we know how to do, and that both build and sell. And if that's no longer driving a revenue stream sufficient to cover this forced investment march, not to mention Huawei rip and government initiatives to pull infrastructure out and accelerate investment, they got to find new ways. >> I mean, the regulations have been tough, right? They don't go forward and ask for permission. They really can't, right? They have to be much more careful. >> Dennis: It is tough. >> So, we don't mean to sound like it's easy for these guys. >> Dennis: No, it's not. >> But it does require a new mindset, new skillsets, and I think some of 'em are going to figure it out and then pff, the wave, and you guys are going to be riding that wave. >> We're going to try. >> Definitely. Definitely. >> As a veteran of working with both Dell and Microsoft, specifically Azure on things, I am struck by how you're very well positioned in this with Microsoft in particular. Because of Azure's history, coming out of the on-premises world that Microsoft knows so well, there's a natural affinity to the hybrid nature of Telecom. We talk about edge, we talk about hybrid, this is it, absolutely the center of it. So it seems like a- >> Yousef: Indeed. Actually, if you look at the history of Azure, from day one, and I was there from day one, we always spoke of the hybrid model. >> Yeah. >> The third point, we came from the on-premises world. >> David: Right. >> And don't get me wrong, I want people to use the public cloud, but I also know due to physics, regulation, geopolitical boundaries, there's something called on-prem, something called an edge here. I want to add something else. Remember our deal on how we are partner-centric? We're applying the same playbook, here. So, you know, for every dollar we make, so many of it's been done by the ecosystem. Same applies here. So we have announced partnerships with Ericson, Nokia, (indistinct), all the names, and of course with Dell and many others. The ecosystem has to come together and customers must retain their optionality to drum up whatever they are on. So it's the same playbook, with this. >> And enterprise technology companies are, actually, really good at, you know, decoding the customer, figuring out specific requirements, making some mistakes the first time through and then eventually getting it right. And as these trends unfold, you know, you're in a good position, I think, as are others and it's an exciting time for enterprise tech in this industry, you know? >> It really is. >> Indeed. >> Dave: Guys, thanks so much for coming on. >> Thank you. >> Dave: It's great to see you. Have a great rest of the show. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dave. Thank you, Dave. >> All right, keep it right there. John Furrier is live in our studio. He's breaking down all the news. Go to siliconangle.com to go to theCUBE.net. Dave Vellante, David Nicholson and Lisa Martin, we'll be right back from the theater in Barcelona, MWC 23 right after this short break. (relaxing music)

(energetic instrumental music) >> Hey, everyone. Welcome to SiliconANGLE CUBE News here from Mobile World Congress. This is a Mobile World Congress news update. Dell in the news here partners with leading infrastructure companies, Dell Technologies, really setting up an ecosystem. Here, Dell, with leading telecom and infrastructure players accelerating the network adoption, announcing that it's launching the Dell's Open Telecom Ecosystem community. A community of multiple telecom partners and communication service providers aimed at becoming a unifying force in the telecom industry. This announcement comes just days after Dell introduced a host of new hardware, platforms designed to help the teleconference build cloud-native open radio network access, also called RAN architectures, using proprietary and sub-components for various suppliers. Dell's Open Telecom Ecosystem community has already partnered with Nokia, Qualcomm, Amdocs and Juniper Networks to create new offerings aimed at accelerating open RAN price performance for communication service providers. This includes creating a new virtual RAN offering using Open Telecom Ecosystem Labs, and as the center for testing and validation, building next-generation 5G virtualized distributed units and deploy and automated validated 5G-SA network with various partners across the ecosystem. Dell's promising that this is just the beginning of the collaboration with the telecom industry as it seeks to accelerate the adoption of 5G networking technologies and solve key industry challenges. More action's on the ground, go to thecube.net, theCUBE is broadcasting live for four days, Dave Vellante, Lisa Martin. I'm in the studios in Palo Alto bringing you the news. Lot of action happening, of course. Go to siliconangle.com to catch all the breaking news. We have a special report. We already got 10 plus stories already flowing. Probably have another 10 today. Day two tomorrow as MWC continues to power more news coverage for the edge and cloud-native technologies. (pensive ambient music)

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

(bright upbeat music) >> Welcome back, everybody, to the Supercloud 2. My name is Dave Vellante. And I'm pleased to welcome Nir Zuk. He's the founder and CTO of Palo Alto Networks. Nir, good to see you again. Welcome. >> Same here. Good to see you. >> So let's start with the right security architecture in the context of today's fragmented market. You've got a lot of different tools, you've got different locations, on-prem, you've got hardware and software. Tell us about the right security architecture from your standpoint. What's that look like? >> You know, the funny thing is using the word security in architecture rarely works together. (Dave chuckles) If you ask a typical information security person to step up to a whiteboard and draw their security architecture, they will look at you as if you fell from the moon. I mean, haven't you been here in the last 25 years? There's no security architecture. The architecture today is just buying a bunch of products and dropping them into the infrastructure at some relatively random way without really any guiding architecture. And that's a huge challenge in cybersecurity. It's always been, we've always tried to find ways to put an architecture into writing blueprints, whatever you want to call it, and it's always been difficult. Luckily, two things. First, there's something called zero trust, which we can talk a little bit about more, if you want, and zero trust among other things is really a way to create a security architecture, and second, because in the cloud, in the supercloud, we're starting from scratch, we can do things differently. We don't have to follow the way we've always done cybersecurity, again, buying random products, okay, maybe not random, maybe there is some thinking going into it by buying products, one of the other, dropping them in, and doing it over 20 years and ending up with a mess in the cloud, we have an opportunity to do it differently and really have an architecture. >> You know, I love talking to founders and particularly technical founders from StartupNation. I think I saw an article, I think it was Erie Levine, one of the founders or co-founders of Waze, and he had a t-shirt on, it said, "Fall in love with the problem, not the solution." Is that how you approached architecture? You talk about zero trust, it's a relatively new term, but was that in your head when you thought about forming the company? >> Yeah, so when I started Palo Alto Networks, exactly, by the way, 17 years ago, we got funded January, 2006, January 18th, 2006. The idea behind Palo Alto Networks was to create a security platform and over time take more and more cybersecurity functions and deliver them on top of that platform, by the way, as a service, SaaS. Everybody thought we were crazy trying to combine many functions into one platform, best of breed and defense in death and putting all your eggs in the same basket and a bunch of other slogans were flying around, and also everybody thought we were crazy asking customers to send information to the cloud in order to secure themselves. Of course, step forward 17 years, everything is now different. We changed the market. Almost all of cybersecurity today is delivered as SaaS and platforms are ruling more and more the world. And so again, the idea behind the platform was to over time take more and more cybersecurity functions and deliver them together, one brain, one decision being made for each and every packet or system call or file or whatever it is that you're making the decision about and it works really, really well. As a side effect, when you combine that with zero trust and you end up with, let's not call it an architecture yet. You end up with with something where any user, any location, both geographically as well as any location in terms of branch office, headquarters, home, coffee shop, hotel, whatever, so any user, any geographical location, any location, any connectivity method, whether it is SD1 or IPsec or Client VPN or Client SVPN or proxy or browser isolation or whatever and any application deployed anywhere, public cloud, private cloud, traditional data center, SaaS, you secure the same way. That's really zero trust, right? You secure everything, no matter who the user is, no matter where they are, no matter where they go, you secure them exactly the same way. You don't make any assumptions about the user or the application or the location or whatever, just because you trust nothing. And as a side effect, when you do that, you end up with a security architecture, the security architecture I just described. The same thing is true for securing applications. If you try to really think and not just act instinctively the way we usually do in cybersecurity and you say, I'm going to secure my traditional data center applications or private cloud applications and public cloud applications and my SaaS applications the same way, I'm not going to trust something just because it's deployed in the private data center. I'm not going to trust two components of an application or two applications talking to each other just because they're deployed in the same place versus if one component is deployed in one public cloud and the other component is deployed in another public cloud or private cloud or whatever. I'm going to secure all of them the same way without making any trust assumptions. You end up with an architecture for securing your applications, which is applicable for the supercloud. >> It was very interesting. There's a debate I want to pick up on what you said because you said don't call it an architecture yet. So Bob Muglia, I dunno if you know Bob, but he sort of started the debate, said, "Supercloud, think of it as a platform, not an architecture." And there are others that are saying, "No, no, if we do that, then we're going to have a bunch of more stove pipes. So there needs to be standard, almost a purist view. There needs to be a supercloud architecture." So how do you think about it? And it's a bit academic, I know, but do you think of this idea of a supercloud, this layer of value on top of the hyperscalers, do you think of that as a platform approach that each of the individual vendors are responsible for the architecture? Or is there some kind of overriding architecture of standards that needs to emerge to enable the supercloud? >> So we can talk academically or we can talk practically. >> Yeah, let's talk practically. That's who you are. (Dave laughs) >> Practically, this world is ruled by financial interests and none of the public cloud providers, especially the bigger they are has any interest of making it easy for anyone to go multi-cloud, okay? Also, on top of that, if we want to be even more practical, each of those large cloud providers, cloud scale providers have engineers and all these engineers think they're the best in the world, which they are and they all like to do things differently. So you can't expect things in AWS and in Azure and GCP and in the other clouds like Oracle and Ali and so on to be the same. They're not going to be the same. And some things can be abstracted. Maybe cloud storage or bucket storage can be abstracted with the layer that makes them look the same no matter where you're running. And some things cannot be abstracted and unfortunately will not be abstracted because the economical interest and the way engineers work won't let it happen. We as a third party provider, cybersecurity provider, and I'm sure other providers in other areas as well are trying or we're doing our best. We're not trying, we are doing our best, and it's pretty close to being the way you describe the top of your supercloud. We're building something that abstracts the underlying cloud such that securing each of these clouds, and by the way, I would add private cloud to it as well, looks exactly the same. So we use, almost always, whenever possible, the same terminology, no matter which cloud we're securing and the same policy and the same alerts and the same information and so on. And that's also very important because when you look at the people that actually end up using the product, security engineers and more importantly, SOC, security operations center analysts, they're not going to study the details of each and every cloud. It's just going to be too much. So we need to abstract it for them. >> Yeah, we agree by the way that the supercloud definition is inclusive of on-prem, you know, what you call private cloud. And I want to pick up on something else you said. I think you're right that abstracting and making consistent across clouds something like object storage, get put, you know, whether it's an S3 bucket or an Azure Blob, relatively speaking trivial. When you now bring that supercloud concept to something more complex like security, first of all, as a technically feasible and inferring the answer there is yes, and if so, what do you see as the main technical challenges of doing so? >> So it is feasible to the extent that the different cloud provide the same functionality. Then you step into a territory where different cloud providers have different paths services and different cloud providers do things a little bit differently and they have different sets of permissions and different logging that sometimes provides all the information and sometimes it doesn't. So you end up with some differences. And then the question is, do you abstract the lowest common dominator and that's all you support? Or do you find a way to be smarter than that? And yeah, whatever can be abstracted is abstracted and whatever cannot be abstracted, you find an easy way to represent that to your users, security engineers, security analysts, and so on, which is what I believe we do. >> And you do that by what? Inventing or developing technology that presents that experience to users? Could you be more specific there? >> Yeah, so different cloud providers call their storage in different names and you use different ways to configure them and the logs come out the same. So we normalize it. I mean, the keyword is probably normalization. Normalize it. And we try to, you know, then you have to pick a winner here and to use someone's terminology or you need to invent new terminology. So we try to use the terminology of the largest cloud provider so that we have a better chance of doing that but we can't always do that because they don't support everything that other cloud providers provide, but the important thing is, with or thanks to that normalization, our customers both on the engineering side and on the user side, operations side end up having to learn one terminology in order to set policies and understand attacks and investigate incidents. >> I wonder if I could pick your brain on what you see as the ideal deployment model to achieve this supercloud experience. For example, do you think instantiating your stack in multiple regions and multiple clouds is the right way to do it? Or is building a single global instance on top of the clouds a more preferable way? Are maybe other models we should consider? What do you see as the trade off of these different deployment models and which one is ideal in your view? >> Yeah, so first, when you deploy cloud security, you have to decide whether you're going to use agents or not. By agents, I mean something working, something running inside the workload. Inside a virtual machine on the container host attached to function, serverless function and so on and I, of course, recommend using agents because that enables prevention, it enables functionality you cannot get without agents but you have to choose that. Now, of course, if you choose agent, you need to deploy AWS agents in AWS and GCP agents in GCP and Azure agents in Azure and so on. Of course, you don't do it manually. You do it through the CICD pipeline. And then the second thing that you need to do is you need to connect with the consoles. Of course, that can be done over the internet no matter where your security instances is running. You can run it on premise, you can run it in one of the other different clouds. Of course, we don't run it on premise. We prefer not to run it on premise because if you're secured in cloud, you might as well run in the cloud. And then the question is, for example, do you run a separate instance for AWS for GCP or for Azure, or you want to run one instance for all of them in one of these clouds? And there are advantages and disadvantages. I think that from a security perspective, it's always better to run in one place because then when you collect the information, you get information from all the clouds and you can start looking for cross-cloud issues, incidents, attacks, and so on. The downside of that is that you need to send all the information to one of the clouds and you probably know that sending data out of the cloud costs a lot of money versus keeping it in the cloud. So theoretically, you can build an architecture where you keep the data for AWS in AWS, Azure in Azure, GCP in GCP, and then you try to run distributed queries. When you do that, you find out you'd end up paying more for the compute to do that than you would've paid for sending all the data to a central location. So we prefer the approach of running in one place, bringing all the data there, and running all the security, the machine learning or whatever, the rules or whatever it is that you're running in one place versus trying to create a distributed deployment in order to try to save some money on the data, the network data transfers. >> Yeah, thank you for that. That makes a lot of sense. And so basically, should we think about the next layer building security data lake, if you will, and then running machine learning on top of that if I can use that term of a data lake or a lake house? Is that sort of where you're headed? >> Yeah, look, the world is headed in that direction, not just the cybersecurity world. The world is headed from being rule-based to being data-based. So cybersecurity is not different and what we used to do with rules in the past, we're now doing with machine learning. So in the past, you would define rules saying, if you see this, this, and this, it's an attack. Now you just throw the data at the machine, I mean, I'm simplifying it, but you throw data at a machine. You'll tell the machine, find the attack in the data. It's not that simple. You need to build the right machine learning models. It needs to be done by people that are both cybersecurity experts and machine learning experts. We do it mostly with ex-military offensive people that take their offensive knowledge and translate it into machine learning models. But look, the world is moving in that direction and cybersecurity is moving in that direction as well. You need to collect a lot of data. Like I said, I prefer to see all the data in one place so that the machine learning can be much more efficient, pay for transferring the data, save money on the compute. >> I think the drop the mic quote it ignite that you had was within five years, your security operation is going to be AI-powered. And so you could probably apply that to virtually any job over the next five years. >> I don't know if any job. Certainly writing essays for school is automated already as we've seen with ChatGPT and potentially other things. By the way, we need to talk at some point about ChatGPT security. I don't want to think what happens when someone spends a lot of money on creating a lot of fake content and teaches ChatGPT the wrong answer to a question. We start seeing ChatGPT as the oracle of everything. We need to figure out what to do with the security of that. But yeah, things have to be automated in cybersecurity. They have to be automated. They're just too much data to deal with and it's just not even close to being good enough to wait for an incident to happen and then going investigate the incident based on the data that we have. It's better to look at all the data all the time, millions of events per second, and find those incidents before they happen. There's no way to do that without machine learning. >> I'd love to have you back and talk about ChatGPT. I know they're trying to put in some guardrails but there are a lot of unintended consequences, aren't there? >> Look, if they're not going to have a person filtering the data, then with enough money, you can create thousands or tens of thousands of pieces of articles or whatever that look real and teach the machine something that is totally wrong. >> We were talking about the hyper skills before and I agree with you. It's very unlikely they're going to get together, band together, and create these standards. But it's not a static market. It's a moving train, if you will. So assuming you're building this cross cloud experience which you are, what do you want from the hyperscalers? What do you want them to bring to the table? What is a technology supplier like Palo Alto Networks bring? In other words, where do you see ongoing as your unique value add and that moat that you're building and how will that evolve over time vis-a-vis the hyperscaler evolution? >> Yeah, look, we need APIs. The more data we have, the more access we have to more data, the less restricted the access is and the cheaper the access is to the data because someone has to pay today for some reason for accessing that data, the more secure their customers are going to be. So we need help and are helping by the way a lot, all of them in finding easy ways for customers to deploy things in the cloud, access data, and again, a lot of data, very diversified data and do it in a cost-effective way. >> And when we talk about the edge, I presume you look at the edge as just another data center or maybe it's the reverse. Maybe the data center is just another edge location, but you're seeing specific edge security solutions come out. I'm guessing that you would say, that's not what we want. Edge should be part of that architecture that we talked about earlier. Do you agree? >> Correct, it should be part of the architecture. I would also say that the edge provides an opportunity specifically for network security, whereas traditional network security would be deployed on premise. I'm talking about internet security but half network security market, and not just network security but also the other network intelligent functions like routing and QS. We're seeing a trend of pushing those to the edge of the cloud. So what you deploy on premise is technology for bringing packets to the edge of the cloud and then you run your security at the edge, whatever that edge is, whether it's a private edge or public edge, you run it in the edge. It's called SASE, Secure Access Services Edge, pronounced SASE. >> Nir, I got to thank you so much. You're such a clear thinker. I really appreciate you participating in Supercloud 2. >> Thank you. >> All right, keep it right there for more content covering the future of cloud and data. This is Dave Vellante for John Furrier. I'll be right back. (bright upbeat music)

>> Hey everyone. Welcome back to theCUBE's coverage day two of CloudNative Security CON 23. Lisa Martin here in studio in Palo Alto with John Furrier. John, we've had some great conversations. I've had a global event. This was a global event. We had Germany on yesterday. We had the Boston Studio. We had folks on the ground in Seattle. Lot of great conversations, a lot of great momentum at this event. What is your number one takeaway with this inaugural event? >> Well, first of all, our coverage with our CUBE alumni experts coming in remotely this remote event for us, I think this event as an inaugural event stood out because one, it was done very carefully and methodically from the CNCF. I think they didn't want to overplay their hand relative to breaking out from CUBE CON So Kubernetes success and CloudNative development has been such a success and that event and ecosystem is booming, right? So that's the big story is they have the breakout event and the question was, was it a good call? Was it successful? Was it going to, would the dog hunt as they say, in this case, I think the big takeaway is that it was successful by all measures. One, people enthusiastic and confident that this has the ability to stand on its own and still contribute without taking away from the benefits and growth of Kubernetes CUBE CON and CloudNative console. So that was the key. Hallway conversations, the sessions all curated and developed properly to be different and focused for that reason. So I think the big takeaway is that the CNCF did a good job on how they rolled this out. Again, it was very intimate event small reminds me of first CUBE CON in Seattle, kind of let's test it out. Let's see how it goes. Again, clearly it was people successful and they understood why they're doing it. And as we commented out in our earlier segments this is not something new. Amazon Web Services has re:Invent and re:Inforce So a lot of parallels there. I see there. So I think good call. CNCF did the right thing. I think this has legs. And then as Dave pointed out, Dave Vellante, on our last keynote analysis was the business model of the hackers is better than the business model of the industry. They're making more money, it costs less so, you know, they're playing offense and the industry playing defense. That has to change. And as Dave pointed out we have to make the cost of hacking and breaches and cybersecurity higher so that the business model crashes. And I think that's the strategic imperative. So I think the combination of the realities of the market globally and open source has to go faster. It's good to kind of decouple and be highly cohesive in the focus. So to me that's the big takeaway. And then the other one is, is that there's a lot more security problems still unresolved. The emphasis on developers productivity is at risk here, if not solved. You saw supply chain software, again, front and center and then down in the weeds outside of Kubernetes, things like BIND and DNS were brought up. You're seeing the Linux kernel. Really important things got to be paid attention to. So I think very good call, very good focus. >> I would love if for us to be able to, as the months go on talk to some of the practitioners that actually got to attend. There were 72 sessions, that's a lot of content for a small event. Obviously to your point, very well curated. We did hear from some folks yesterday who were just excited to get the community back together in person. To your point, having this dedicated focus on CloudNativesecurity is incredibly important. You talked about, you know, the offense defense, the fact that right now the industry needs to be able to pivot from being on defense to being on offense. This is a challenging thing because it is so lucrative for hackers. But this seems to be from what we've heard in the last couple days, the right community with the right focus to be able to make that pivot. >> Yeah, and I think if you look at the success of Kubernetes, 'cause again we were there at theCUBE first one CUBE CON, the end user stories really drove end user participation. Drove the birth of Kubernetes. Left some of these CloudNative early adopters early pioneers that were using cloud hyperscale really set the table for CloudNative CON. I think you're seeing that here with this CloudNative SecurityCON where I think we're see a lot more end user stories because of the security, the hairs on fire as we heard from Madrona Ventures, you know, as they as an investor you have a lot of use cases out there where customers are leaning in with getting the rolling up their sleeves, working with open source. This has to be the driver. So I'm expecting to see the next level of SecurityCON to be end user focused. Much more than vendor focused. Where CUBECON was very end user focused and then attracted all the vendors in that grew the industry. I expect the similar pattern here where end user action will be very high at the beginning and that will essentially be the rising tide for the vendors to be then participating. So I expect almost a similar trajectory to CUBECON. >> That's a good path that it needs to all be about all the end users. One of the things I'm curious if what you heard was what are some of the key factors that are going to move CloudNative Security forward? What did you hear the last two days? >> I heard that there's a lot of security problems and no one wants to kind of brag about this but there's a lot of under the hood stuff that needs to get taken care of. So if automation scales, and we heard that from one of the startups we've just interviewed. If automation and scale continues to happen and with the business model of the hackers still booming, security has to be refactored quickly and there's going to be an opportunity structurally to use the cloud for that. So I think it's a good opportunity now to get dedicated focus on fixing things like the DNS stuff old school under the hood, plumbing, networking protocols. You're going to start to see this super cloud-like environment emerge where data's involved, everything's happening and so security has to be re imagined. And I think there's a do over opportunity for the security industry with CloudNative driving that. And I think this is the big thing that I see as an opportunity to, from a story standpoint from a coverage standpoint is that it's a do-over for security. >> One of the things that we heard yesterday is that there's a lot of it, it's a pretty high percentage of organizations that either don't have a SOCK or have a very primitive SOCK. Which kind of surprised me that at this day and age the risks are there. We talked about that today's focus and the keynote was a lot about the software supply chain and what's going on there. What did you hear in terms of the appetite for organizations through the voice of the practitioner to say, you know what guys, we got to get going because there's going to be the hackers are they're here. >> I didn't hear much about that in the coverage 'cause we weren't in the hallways. But from reading the tea leaves and talking to the folks on the ground, I think there's an implied like there's an unlimited money from customers. So it's a very robust from the data infrastructure stack building we cover with the angel investor Kane you're seeing data infrastructure's going to be part of the solution here 'cause data and security go hand in hand. So everyone's got basically checkbook wide open everyone wants to have the answer. And we commented that the co-founder of Palo Alto you had on our coverage yesterday was saying that you know, there's no real platform, there's a lot of tools out there. People will buy anything. So there's still a huge appetite and spend in security but the answer's not going to more tool sprawling. It's going to more platform auto, something that enables automation, fix some of the underlying mechanisms involved and fix it fast. So to me I think it's going to be a robust monetary opportunity because of the demand on the business side. So I don't see that changing at all and I think it's going to accelerate. >> It's a great point in terms of the demand for the business side because as we know as we said yesterday, the next Log4j is out there. It's not a matter of if this happens again it's when, it's the extent, it's how frequent we know that. So organizations all the way up to the board have to be concerned about brand reputation. Nobody wants to be the next big headline in terms of breaches and customer data being given to hackers and hackers making all this money on that. That has to go all the way up to the board and there needs to be alignment between the board and the executives at the organization in terms of how they're going to deal with security, and now. This is not a conversation that can wait. Yeah, I mean I think the five C's we talked about yesterday the culture of companies, the cloud is an enabler, you've got clusters of servers and capabilities, Kubernetes clusters, you've got code and you've got all kinds of, you know, things going on there. Each one has elements that are at risk for hacking, right? So that to me is something that's super important. I think that's why the focus on security's different and important, but it's not going to fork the main event. So that's why I think the spin out was, spinout, or the new event is a good call by the CNCF. >> One of the things today that struck me they're talking a lot about software supply chain and that's been in the headlines for quite a while now. And a stat that was shared this morning during the keynote just blew my brains that there was a 742% increase in the software supply chain attacks occurring over the last three years. It's during Covid times, that is a massive increase. The threat landscape is just growing so amorphously but organizations need to help dial that down because their success and the health of the individuals and the end users is at risk. Well, Covid is an environment where everyone's kind of working at home. So there was some disruption to infrastructure. Also, when you have change like that, there's opportunities for hackers, they'll arbitrage that big time. But I think general the landscape is changing. There's no perimeter anymore. It's CloudNative, this is where it is and people who are moving from old IT to CloudNative, they're at risk. That's why there's tons of ransomware. That's why there's tons of risk. There's just hygiene, from hygiene to architecture and like Nick said from Palo Alto, the co-founder, there's not a lot of architecture in security. So yeah, people have bulked up their security teams but you're going to start to see much more holistic thinking around redoing security. I think that's the opportunity to propel CloudNative, and I think you'll see a lot more coming out of this. >> Did you hear any specific information on some of the CloudNative projects going on that really excite you in terms of these are the right people going after the right challenges to solve in the right direction? >> Well I saw the sessions and what jumped out to me at the sessions was it's a lot of extensions of what we heard at CUBECON and I think what they want to do is take out the big items and break 'em out in security. Kubescape was one we just covered. They want to get more sandbox type stuff into the security side that's very security focused but also plays well with CUBECON. So we'll hear more about how this plays out when we're in Amsterdam coming up in April for CUBECON to hear how that ecosystem, because I think it'll be kind of a relief to kind of decouple security 'cause that gives more focus to the stakeholders in CUBECON. There's a lot of issues going on there and you know service meshes and whatnot. So it's a lot of good stuff happening. >> A lot of good stuff happening. One of the things that'll be great about CUBECON is that we always get the voice of the customer. We get vendors coming on with the voice of the customer talking about and you know in that case how they're using Kubernetes to drive the business forward. But it'll be great to be able to pull in some of the security conversations that spin out of CloudNative Security CON to understand how those end users are embracing the technology. You brought up I think Nir Zuk from Palo Alto Networks, one of the themes there when Dave and I did their Ignite event in December was, of 22, was really consolidation. There are so many tools out there that organizations have to wrap their heads around and they need to be able to have the right enablement content which this event probably delivered to figure out how do we consolidate security tools effectively, efficiently in a way that helps dial down our risk profile because the risks just seem to keep growing. >> Yeah, and I love the technical nature of all that and I think this is going to be the continued focus. Chris Aniszczyk who's the CTO listed like E and BPF we covered with Liz Rice is one of the most three important points of the conference and it's just, it's very nerdy and that's what's needed. I mean it's technical. And again, there's no real standards bodies anymore. The old days developers I think are super important to be the arbiters here. And again, what I love about the CNCF is that they're developer focused and we heard developer first even in security. So you know, this is a sea change and I think, you know, developers' choice will be the standards bodies. >> Lisa: Yeah, yeah. >> They decide the future. >> Yeah. >> And I think having the sandboxing and bringing this out will hopefully accelerate more developer choice and self-service. >> You've been talking about kind of putting the developers in the driver's seat as really being the key decision makers for a while. Did you hear information over the last couple of days that validates that? >> Yeah, absolutely. It's clearly the fact that they did this was one. The other one is, is that engineering teams and dev teams and script teams, they're blending together. It's not just separate silos and the ones that are changing their team dynamics, again, back to the culture are winning. And I think this has to happen. Security has to be embedded everywhere in making it frictionless and to provide kind of the guardrail so developers don't slow down. And I think where security has become a drag or an anchor or a blocker has been just configuration of how the organization's handling it. So I think when people recognize that the developers are in charge and they're should be driving the application development you got to make sure that's secure. And so that's always going to be friction and I think whoever does it, whoever unlocks that for the developer to go faster will win. >> Right. Oh, that's what I'm sure magic to a developer's ear is the ability to go faster and be able to focus on co-development in a secure fashion. What are some of the things that you're excited about for CUBECON. Here we are in February, 2023 and CUBECON is just around the corner in April. What are some of the things that you're excited about based on the groundswell momentum that this first inaugural CloudNative Security CON is generating from a community, a culture perspective? >> I think this year's going to be very interesting 'cause we have an economic challenge globally. There's all kinds of geopolitical things happening. I think there's going to be very entrepreneurial activity this year more than ever. I think you're going to see a lot more innovative projects ideas hitting the table. I think it's going to be a lot more entrepreneurial just because the cycle we're in. And also I think the acceleration of mainstream deployments of out of the CNCF's main event CUBECON will happen. You'll see a lot more successes, scale, more clarity on where the security holes are or aren't. Where the benefits are. I think containers and microservices are continuing to surge. I think the Cloud scale hyperscale as Amazon, Azure, Google will be more aggressive. I think AI will be a big theme this year. I think you can see how data is going to infect some of the innovation thinking. I'm really excited about the data infrastructure because it powers a lot of things in the Cloud. So I think the Amazon Web Services, Azure next level gen clouds will impact what happens in the CloudNative foundation. >> Did you have any conversations yesterday or today with respect to AI and security? Was that a focus of anybody's? Talk to me about that. >> Well, I didn't hear any sessions on AI but we saw some demos on stage. But they're teasing out that this is an augmentation to their mission, right? So I think a lot of people are looking at AI as, again, like I always said there's the naysayers who think it's kind of a gimmick or nothing to see here, and then some are just going to blown away. I think the people who are alpha geeks and the industry connect the dots and understand that AI is going to be an accelerant to a lot of heavy lifting that was either manual, you know, hard to do things that was boring or muck as they say. I think that's going to be where you'll see the AI stories where it's going to accelerate either ways to make security better or make developers more confident and productive. >> Or both. >> Yeah. So definitely AI will be part of it. Yeah, definitely. One of the things too that I'm wondering if, you know, we talk about CloudNative and the goal of it, the importance of it. Do you think that this event, in terms of what we were able to see, obviously being remote the event going on in Seattle, us being here in Palo Alto and Boston and guests on from Seattle and Germany and all over, did you hear the really the validation for why CloudNative Security why CloudNative is important for organizations whether it's a bank or a hospital or a retailer? Is that validation clear and present? >> Yeah, absolutely. I think it was implied. I don't think there was like anyone's trying to debate that. I think this conference was more of it's assumed and they were really trying to push the ability to make security less defensive, more offensive and more accelerated into the solving the problems with the businesses that are out there. So clearly the CloudNative community understands where the security challenges are and where they're emerging. So having a dedicated event will help address that. And they've got great co-chairs too that put it together. So I think that's very positive. >> Yeah. Do you think, is it possible, I mean, like you said several times today so eloquently the industry's on the defense when it comes to security and the hackers are on the offense. Is it really possible to make that switch or obviously get some balances. As technology advances and industry gets to take advantage of that, so do the hackers, is that balance achievable? >> Absolutely. I mean, I think totally achievable. The question's going to be what's the environment going to be like? And I remember as context to understanding whether it's viable or not, is to look at, just go back 13 years ago, I remember in 2010 Amazon was viewed as an unsecure environment. Everyone's saying, "Oh, the cloud is not secure." And I remember interviewing Steve Schmidt at AWS and we discussed specifically how Amazon Cloud was being leveraged by hackers. They made it more complex for the hackers. And he said, "This is just the beginning." It's kind of like barbed wire on a fence. It's yeah, you're not going to climb it so people can get over it. And so since then what's happened is the Cloud has become more secure than on premises for a lot of either you know, personnel reasons, culture reasons, not updating, you know, from patches to just being insecure to be more insecure. So that to me means that the flip the script can be flipped. >> Yeah. And I think with CloudNative they can build in automation and code to solve some of these problems and make it more complex for the hacker. >> Lisa: Yes. >> And increase the cost. >> Yeah, exactly. Make it more complex. Increase the cost. That'll be in interesting journey to follow. So John, here we are early February, 2023 theCUBE starting out strong as always. What year are we in, 12? Year 12? >> 13th year >> 13! What's next for theCUBE? What's coming up that excites you? >> Well, we're going to do a lot more events. We got the theCUBE in studio that I call theCUBE Center as kind of internal code word, but like, this is more about getting the word out that we can cover events remotely as events are starting to change with hybrid, digital is going to be a big part of that. So I think you're going to see a lot more CUBE on location. We're going to do, still do theCUBE and have theCUBE cover events from the studio to get deeper perspective because we can then bring people in remote through our our studio team. We can bring our CUBE alumni in. We have a corpus of content and experts to bring to table. So I think the coverage will be increased. The expertise and data will be flowing through theCUBE and so Cube Center, CUBE CUBE Studio. >> Lisa: Love it. >> Will be a integral part of our coverage. >> I love that. And we have such great conversations with guests in person, but also virtually, digitally as well. We still get the voices of the practitioners and the customers and the vendors and the partner ecosystem really kind of lauded loud and clear through theCUBE megaphone as I would say. >> And of course getting the clips out there, getting the highlights. >> Yeah. >> Getting more stories. No stories too small for theCUBE. We can make it easy to get the best content. >> The best content. John, it's been fun covering CloudNative security CON with you with you. And Dave and our guests, thank you so much for the opportunity and looking forward to the next event. >> John: All right. We'll see you at Amsterdam. >> Yeah, I'll be there. We want to thank you so much for watching TheCUBES's two day coverage of CloudNative Security CON 23. We're live in Palo Alto. You are live wherever you are and we appreciate your time and your view of this event. For John Furrier, Dave Vellante, I'm Lisa Martin. Thanks for watching guys. We'll see you at the next show.

(rousing music) >> Hello everyone. Welcome back to "theCUBE's" day one coverage of Cloud Native Security Con 23. This is going to be an exciting panel. I've got three great guests. I'm Lisa Martin, you know our esteemed analysts, John Furrier, and Dave Vellante well. And we're excited to welcome to "theCUBE" for the first time, Yves Sandfort, the CEO of Comdivision Group, who's coming to us from Germany. As you know, Cloud Native Security Con is a global event. Everyone welcome Yves, great to have you in particular. Welcome to "theCUBE." >> Great to be here. >> Thank you for inviting me. >> Yves, tell us a little bit, before we dig into really wanting to understand your perspectives on the event and get Dave and John's feedback as well, tell us a little bit about you. >> So yeah, talking about me, or talking about Comdivision real quick. We are in the business for over 27 years already. We started as a SaaS company, then became more like an architecture and, and Cloud Native company over the last few years. But what's interesting is, and I think that's, that's, that's really interesting when we look at our industry. It hasn't really, the requirements haven't really changed over the years. It's still security. We still have to figure out how we deal with security. We still have to figure out how we deal with compliance and everything else. And I think therefore, it's more and more important that we take these items more seriously. Also, based on the fact that when we look at it, how development and other things happen nowadays, it's, it's, everybody says it's like open source. It's great because everybody can look into the code. We, I think the last few years have shown us enough example that that's not necessarily solving all the issues, but it's also code and development has changed rapidly when we look at the Cloud Native approach, where it's far more about gluing the pieces together, versus the development pieces. When I was actually doing software development 25 years ago, and had to basically build my code because I didn't have that much internet access for it. So it has evolved, but even back then we had to deal with security and everything. >> Right. The focus on security is, is incredibly important, and the focus keeps growing as you mentioned. This is, guys, and I want to get your perspectives on this. We're going to start with John. This is the first time Cloud Native Security Con is its own event being extracted from, and amplified from KubeCon. John, I want to understand from your perspective, break down the event, what you see, what you've heard, and Cloud Native Security in general. What does this mean to companies? What does it mean to customers? Is this a reality? >> Well, I think that's the topic we want to discuss, and I think Yves background, you see the VMware certification, I love that. Because what VMware did with virtualization, was abstract that from server virtualization, kind of really changed the game on things, and you start to see Cloud Native kind of go that next level of how companies will be operating their business, not just digital transformation, as digital transformation goes to completion, it's total business transformation where IT is everywhere. And so you're starting to see the trends where, "Okay, that's happening." Now you're starting to see, that's Cloud Native Con, or KubeCon, AWS re:Invent, or whatever show, or whatever way you want to look at it. But in, in the past decade, past five years, security has always been front and center as almost a separate thing, and, in and of itself, but the same thing. So you're starting to see the breakout of security conversations around how to make things work. So a lot of operational conversations around what used to be DevOps makes infrastructure as code, and that was great, that fueled that. Then DevSecOps came. So the Cloud Native next level, is more application development at scale, developers driving the standards with developer first thinking, shifting left, I get all that. But down in the lower ends of the stack, you got real operational issues. DNS we've heard in the keynote, we heard about the Colonel, the Lennox Colonel. Things that need to be managed and taken care of at a security level. These are like, seem like in the weeds, but you're starting to see that happen. And the other thing that I think's real about Cloud Native Security Con that's going to be interesting to watch, is Amazon has pretty much canceled all their re:Invent like shows except for two; Re:Invent, which is their annual conference, and Re:Inforce, which is dedicated to securities. So Cloud Native, Linux, the Linux Foundation has now breaking out Cloud Native Con and KubeCon, and now Cloud Native Security Con. They can't call it KubeCon because it's not Kubernetes, but it's like security focus. I think this is the beginning of starting to see this new developer driving, developers driving the standards, and it has it implications, what used to be called IT ops, and that's like the VMwares of the world. You saw all the stuff that was not at developer focus, but more ops, becoming much more in the application. So I think, I think it's real. The question is where does it go? How fast does it develop? So to me, I think it's a real trend, and it's worthy of a breakout, but it's not yet clear of where the landing zone is for people to start doing it, how they get started, what are the best practices. Machine learning's going to be a big part of this. So to me it's totally cool, but I'm not yet seeing the beachhead. So that's kind of my take. >> Dave, our inventor and host of breaking analysis, what's your take? >> So when you, I think when you zoom out, there's some, there's a big macro change that's been going on. I think when you look back, let's say 10, 12 years ago, the, the need for speed far trumped the, the, the security aspect, the governance, the data privacy. It was like, "Yeah, the risks, they're not that great compared to our opportunity." That has completely changed because the risks are now so much higher. And so what's happening, I think there's a, there's a major effort amongst CIOs and CISOs to try to make security not a blocker because it use to be, it still is. "Okay, I got this great initiative." Eh, give it to the SecOps pros, and let them take it for a while before we can go to market. And so a huge challenge now is to simplify, automate, AI comes in, the whole supply chain security, so the, so the companies can not be facing so much friction. And that is non-trivial. I don't think we're anywhere close there, but I think the goal is by, within the next several years, we're going to be in a position, that security, we heard today, is, wasn't designed in to the initial internet protocols. It was bolted on. And so increasingly, the fundamental architecture of the internet, the Cloud, et cetera, is, is seeing designed in security, and, and that is an imperative, or else business is going to come to a grinding halt. >> Right. It's no longer, the bolt no longer works. Yves, what's your perspective on Cloud Native Security, where it stands today? What's in it for customers, whether we're talking about banks, or hospitals, or retailers, what do you think? >> I think when we, when we look at security in the, in the modern world, is we need to as, as Dave mentioned, we need to rethink how we apply it. Very often, security in the past has been always bolted on in the end. If we continue to do that, it'll become more and more difficult, because as companies evolve, and as companies want to bring products and software to market in a much faster and faster way, it's getting more and more difficult if we bolt on the security process at the end. It's like, developers build something and then someone checks security. That's not going to work any longer. Especially if we also consider now the changes in the industry. We had Stack Overflow over the last 10 years. If I would've had Stack Overflow 15, 20, what, 25 years ago when I was a developer, it would've changed a hell lot. Looking at it now, and looking at it what we had in the last few weeks, it's like where nearly all of my team members say is like finally I don't need any script kiddies anymore because I can't go to (indistinct) who writes the code for me. Which is on one end great, because it enables us to solve certain problems in a much higher pace. But the challenge with that is, if the people who just copy and past that code, don't understand the implications of that code, we have a much higher risk continuously. And what people thought was, is challenging with Stack Overflow. Imagine that something in one of these AI engines, is actually going ballistic, and it creates holes in nearly every one of these applications. And trust me, there will be enough developers who are going to use these tools to develop codes, the same as students in university are going to take this to write their essays and everything else. And so it's really important that every developer team basically has a security person within their team, and not a security at the end. So we build something, we check it, go through QA, and then it goes to security. Security needs to be at the forefront. And I think that's where we see Cloud Native Security Con, where we see AWS. I saw it during re:Invent already where they said is like, we have reinforced next year. I think this becomes more and more of a topic, and I think companies, as much as it is become a norm that you have a firewall and everything else, it needs to become a norm that when you are doing software development, and every development team needs to have a security person on that needs to be trained. >> I love that chat comment Dave, 'cause you and I were talking about this. And I think that is going to be the issue. Do we need security chat for the chat bot? And there's like a, like a recursive model there. The biases are built in. I think, and I think our interview with the Palo Alto Network's co-founder, Dave, when he talked about zero trust as a structured way to start things, but he was referencing that with Cloud, there's a chance to rethink or do a do-over in security. So, I think this is kind of to me, where this is all going. And I think you asked Pat Gelsinger what, year 2013, 2014, can, is security a do over? I think we're in that do over time. >> He said yes. >> He said yes. (laughing) He was right. But yeah, eight years later... But this is, how do you, zero trust gives you some structure, but how do you organize and redo security? Because to me, I think that's what's happening here. >> And John you heard, Zuk at Palo Alto Network said, "Yeah, the, the words security and architecture, they don't go together historically." And so it is a total, total retake. >> Well is that because there's too many tools out there and- >> Yeah. For sure. >> Yeah, well, first of all, a lot of hardware. And then yeah, a lot of tools. You even see IIOT and industry 40, you see IOT security coming up as another stove pipe, and that's not the right approach. And, and so- >> Well let me, let me ask you a question Dave, and Yves, if you don't mind. 'Cause I was just riffing on this yesterday about this. In the ML space, you're seeing the ML models, you're seeing proprietary models versus open source. Is security going to go down this proprietary security methods and open source? Because that's interesting, because the CNCF is run by the the Linux Foundation. So you can almost maybe see a model where there's more proprietary security methods than open source. Or is it, is that a non-issue? >> I would, I would, let me, if I, if I jump in here first, I think the last, especially last five or 10 years have clearly shown the, the whole and, and I invested early on in the, in the end 90s in several open source startups in the Bay area. So, I'm well behind the whole open source idea and, and mid (indistinct) and others back then several times. But the point is, I think what we have seen is open source is not in general, more secure or less secure, because code is too complex nowadays. You have millions of lines of code, and it's not that either one way or the other is going to solve it. The ways I think we are going to look at it is more is what's the role to market, because only because something is open source doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be available for everyone. And the same for proprietary source from that perspective, even though everybody mixes licensing and payments and all that all the time, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. But I think as we are going through it, and when we also look at the industry, security industry over the last 10 plus years has been primarily hardware focused. And a lot of these vendors have done a good business out of selling hardware boxes, putting software on top of it. Whereas in reality, those were still X86 standard boxes in the end. So it was not that we had specific security ethics or anything like that in there anymore. And so overall, the question of the market is going to change. And as we are looking into Cloud Native, think about someone like an AWS, do you really envision them to have a hardware box of every supplier in their data center, and that in every availability zone in every region? Same for Microsoft, same for Google, etc? So we need to have new ways on how we can apply security. And that applies both on the backend services, but also on the front end side. >> And if I, and if I could chime in, I think the, the good, I think the answer is, is, is no and yes. And what I mean by that is if you take, antivirus and known malware, I mean pretty much anybody today can, can solve that problem, it's the unknown malware. So I think the yes part of the answer is yes, it's, it's going to be proprietary, but in the sense we're going to use open source tooling, and then apply that in a proprietary way with, with specific algorithms and unique architectures that are going to solve problems. For example, XDR with, with unknown malware. So, and that's the, that's the hard part. As somebody said, I think this morning at the keynote, it's, it's all the stuff that, that the SecOps team couldn't find. That's the really hard part. >> (laughs) Well the question will be will, is the new IP, the ability to feed ChatGPT some magical spelled insertion query string that does the job, that's unique, that might be the new IP, the the question to ask. >> Well, that's what the hackers are going to do. And I, they're on offense. (John laughs) And the offense knows what play is coming. So, they're going to start. >> So guys, let's take this conversation up a level. I want to get your perspectives on what's in this for me as a customer? We know security is a board level conversation. We talk about this all the time. We also know that they're based on, I think David, was the conversations that you and I had, with Palo Alto Networks at Ignite in December. There's a, there's a lack of alignment between the executives and the board from a security perspective. When we talk about Cloud Native Security, we all talked about the value in that, what's in it for customers? I want to get your perspectives on should this be a board level conversation, and if so, how do you advise organizations, whether it is a hospital, or a bank, or an organization that is really affected by things like ransomware? How should they be thinking about this from an organizational perspective? >> Well, I'll start first, because we had this conversation during our Super Cloud event last month, and this comes up a lot. And this is, the CEO board level. Yes it is a board level conversation for security, as is application development as in terms of transforming their business to be competitive, not to be on the wrong side of history with this wave coming. So I think that's more of a management. But the issue is, they tell their people, "Go do it." And they're like, 'cause they get sold on the idea of, "Hey, won't you transform your business, and everything's going to be data driven, and machine learning's going to power your apps, get new customers, be profitable." "Oh, sign me up for that." When you have to implement this, it's really hard. And I think the core issue is, where are companies in their life cycle of the ability to execute and architect this thing properly as Dave said, Nick Zuk said, "You can't have architecture and security, you need platforms." So, I think the re-platforming, and the re-factoring of business is a big factor, and that's got to get down into the, the organizational shifts and the people to do it. So are there skills? Do I do a managed service? How do I architect it? Are there more services? Are there developers doing applications that are going to be more agile? So, this is not an easy thing. And to move a business from IT operations that is proven, to be positioned for this enablement, is just really difficult. And it's expensive. And if you screw it up, you could be, could be on the wrong side of things. So, to me, that's the big issue is, you sell the dream and then you got to implement it. And that's really difficult. >> Yves, give us your perspective on, based on John's comments, how do organizations shift so dramatically? There's a cultural element there as well, but there's also organizations that are, have competitive competitors in the rear view mirror, and there's time to waste. What are your thoughts on that? >> I think that's exactly the point. It's like, as an organization, you need to take the decision between the time, the risk, and all the other elements we have into this game. Because you can try to achieve 100% security, but that's exactly the same as trying to, to protect gold or anything else 100%. It's most likely not going to be from a risk perspective anyway sensible. And that's the same from a corporational perspective. When you look at building new internet services, or IOT services, or any kind of new shopping experience or whatever else, you need to balance out between the risks and the advantages out of it. And you also need to be accepting that you potentially on the way make mistakes, but then it's more important than ever that you are able to quickly fix any mistakes, and to adjust to anything what's happening in the market. Because as we are building all these new Cloud Native applications, and build up all these skill sets, one of the big scenarios is we are far more depending on individual building blocks. These building blocks come out of open source communities, which have a much different way. When we look back in software development, back then we had application servers from Oracle, Web Logic, whatsoever, they had a release cycles of every three to six months. As now we have to deal with open source, where sometimes release cycles are on a four week schedule, in between security patches. So you need to be much faster in adopting that, checking that, implementing that, getting things to work. So there is a security stretch from that perspective. There is a speech stretch on the other thing companies have to deal with, and on the other side it's always a measurement between the risk, and the security you can afford. Because reality is, you will not be 100% protected no matter what you do. So, you need to balance out what you as an organization can actually build on. But I think, coming back also to the point, it's on the bot level nowadays. It's like nearly every discussion we have with companies nowadays as they move into the Cloud, especially also here in Europe where for the last five years, it was always, it's like "It's data privacy." Data privacy is no longer, I mean, yes, for certain people, it's still the point, but for many more people it's like, "How protected is my data?" "What do we do in case of ransomware attack?" "What do we do in case of a denial of service?" All of these things become more vulnerable, where in the past you were discussing these things with a becking page, or, or like a stock exchange. They were, it's like, "What the hell is going to happen if we have a denial of service?" Now all of the sudden, this now affects nearly everyone in their storefronts and everything else, because everything is depending on it. >> Yeah, I think you're right on. You think about how cultural change occurs, it's bottom ups or, bottom up, top down or middle out. And what, what's happened with security is the people in the security team cared about it, they were the, everybody said, "Oh, it's their problem." And then it just did an end run to the board, kind of mid, early last decade. And then the board sort of pushed that down. And the line of business is realizing, "Holy cow. My business, my EBIT can be dramatically affected by this, so I care." Now it's this whole house, cultural team sport. I know it's sort of a, a cliche, but it, it's true. Everybody actually is beginning to care about security because the risks are now so high, and it's going to affect not only the bottom line of the company, the bottom line of the business, their job, it's, it's, it's virtually everywhere. It's a huge cultural shift that we're seeing. >> And that's a big challenge for organizations in any industry. And Yves, you talked about ransomware service. Every industry across the globe is vulnerable to this. But how can, maybe John, we'll start with you. How can Cloud Native Security help organizations if they're able to embrace it, operationally, culturally, dial down some of the vulnerabilities that just seem to keep growing? >> Well, I mean that's the big question. The breaches are, are critical. The governances also could be a way that anchors down growth. So I think the balance between the governance compliance piece of it is key, but making the developers faster and more productive is the key to me. And I think having the security paradigm where they're not blockers, as Dave said, is critical. So I love the whole shift left, but now that we have more data focused initiatives around how that, you can use data to understand the security issues, I think data and security are together, and I think there's a going to be a data operating system model emerging, where data and security will be almost one thing. And that will be set up by the security teams, and the data teams together. And that will feed guardrails into the developer environment. So the developer should feel no pain at all in doing this. So I think the best practice will end up being what we're seeing with supply chain, security, with making sure code's verified. And you're going to see the container, security side completely address has been, and KubeCon, we just, I asked Scott Johnson, the CEO of Docker, and I asked him directly, "Are you guys all tight on container security?" He said, yes, but other people are suggesting that's not true. There's a lot of issues with the container security. So, there's all kinds of areas where there's holes. So Cloud Native is cool on one hand, and very relevant, but if it's not shored up, it's going to be a problem. But I, so I think that's where the action will be, at the developer pipeline, in the containers, and the data. So, that will be very relevant, and if companies nail that, they'll be faster, they'll have better apps, and that'll be the differentiator. And again, if they don't on this next wave, they're going to be driftwood. >> Dave, how do they prevent becoming driftwood? >> Well, I think Cloud has had a huge impact. And a Cloud's by no means a panacea, but let's face it, it's dramatically improved a lot of companies security posture. Now there's still that shared responsibility. Even though an S3 bucket is encrypted, it's still your responsibility to make sure that it doesn't get decrypted by somebody who has access to it. So there are things like that, but to Yve's earlier point, that can be, that's done through software now, it's done through best practices. Those best practices can be shared. So the way you, you don't become driftwood, is you start to, you step back, rethink that security architecture as we were talking about earlier, take advantage of the Cloud, take advantage of Cloud Native, and all the, the rapid pace of innovation that's occurring there, and you don't use, it's called before, The audit is the last line of defense. That's no longer a check box item. "Oh yeah, we're in compliance." It's, this is a business imperative, and because we're going to reduce our expected loss and reduce our business risk. That's part of the business case today. >> Yeah. >> It's a huge, critically important part of the business case. Yves, question for you. If you're in an elevator with a CEO, a CFO, and a CISO, and they're talking about security and Cloud Native Security, what's your value proposition to them on a, on a say a 32nd elevator ride? >> Difficult story. I think at the moment, the most important part is, we need to get people to work together, and we need to train people to work more much better together. I think that's the overall most important part for all of these solutions, because in the end, security is always a person issue. If, we can have the best tools in the industry, as long as we don't get all of these teams to work together, then we have a problem. If the security team is always seen as the end of the solution to fix everything, that's not going to work because they always are the bad guys in the game. And so we need to bring the teams together. And once we have the teams work together, I think we have a far better track on, on maintaining security. >> John and Dave, I want to get your perspectives on what Yves just said. In all the experience that the two of you have as industry analysts here on "theCUBE," Wikibon, Siliconangle Media. How do you advise organizations to get those teams together? As Eve said, that alignment is critical, but John, we'll start with you, then Dave go to you. What's your advice for organizations that need to align those teams and really don't have a lot of time to wait to do it? >> (chuckling) That's a great question. I think, I think that's everyone pays hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars to get that advice from these consultants, organizations out there doing the transformations. But I think it comes down to personnel and commitment. I think if there's a C-level commitment to the effort, you'll see the institutional structure change. So you can see really getting behind it with their, with their wallet and their, and their support of either getting more personnel to support and assist, or manage services, or giving the power to the teams to execute and doing it in a way that, that's, that's well known and best practices. Start small, build out the pilots, build the platform, and then start getting it right. And I think that's the key. Not the magic wand, the old model of rolling out stuff in, in six month cycles. It's really, get the proof points, double down and change the culture, but also execute and have real metrics. And changing the architecture, like having more penetration tests as a service. Doing pen tests is like a joke now. So that doesn't make any sense. You got to have that built in almost every day, and every minute. So, these kinds of new techniques have to be implemented and have to be tried. So that's why these communities are growing. That's why I like what open source has been doing, and I like the open source as the place to have these conversations, because that's where the action will be for new stuff. And I think people will implement open source like they did before, but with different ways, better testing, better supply chain on the software side, verifying code. So, I see open source actually getting a tailwind from this, not a headwind. So, I'm bullish on the open source piece here on, on all levels, machine learning- >> Lisa, my answer is intramural sports. And it's 'cause I think it's cultural. And what I mean by that, is you take your your best and brightest security, and this is what frankly, a lot of CISOs do, an examples is Lena Smart, MongoDB. Take your best and brightest security pros, make them captains of the intramural teams, and pair them up with pods of individuals across the organization, which is most people who don't know anything about security, and put them together, so that they can, they, so that the folks that understand security can, can realize how little people know, what, what, what, how, what the worst practices that are out there in the reverse, how they can cross pollinate. And they do that on a regular basis, I know at Mongo and other companies. And that kind of cultural assimilation is a starting point for how you get security awareness up to your question around making it a team sport. >> Absolutely critical. Yves, I want to kind of wrap things with you. We've got a couple of minutes left. When you're really looking at the Cloud Native community, the growth of it, we talked about earlier in the program, Cloud Native Security Con being now extracted and elevated out of KubeCon, what are your thoughts on the groundswell that this community is generating around Cloud Native Security, the benefits that organizations will achieve from it? >> I think overall, when we have these securities conferences, or these security arms a bit spread out and separated out of the main conference, it helps to a certain degree, because especially in the security space, when you look at at other like black hat or white hat conferences and things like that in the past, although they were not focused on Cloud Native, a lot of these security folks didn't feel well taken care of in any of the other conferences because they were always these, it's like they are always blocking us, they're always making us problems, and all these kinds of things. Now that we really take the Cloud Native piece and the security piece together, or like AWS does it with re:Inforce, I think we will see more and more that people understand is that security is a permanent topic we need to cover, but we need to bring different people together, because security also has compliance and a lot of other components in there. So we will see at these conferences moving forward, also a different audience. It's not going to be only the Cloud Native developers. And if I see some of these security audiences, I can't really imagine them to really be at KubeCon because there is too much other things going on. And you couldn't really see much of that at re:Invent because re:Invent by itself has become a complete monster of a conference. It covers too many topics. And so having this very, very important security piece separated, also gives the opportunity, I think, that we can bring in the security people, but also have the type of board level discussions potentially, between the leaders of the industry, to also discuss on how we can evolve, how we can make things better, and how, how we can actually, yeah, evolve our industry for it. Because let's face it, that threat is not going to go away. It's, it's a business. And one of the last security conferences I was on, on the ransomware part, it was one of the topics someone said is like, "Look, currently on average, it takes a hacker group roughly around they said 15 to 20 K to break into a company, and they on average make 100K. It's a business, let's face it. And it's a business we don't like. And ethically, it's no discussion that this is not good, but that's something which is happening. People are making money with it. And as long as that's going to go on, and we have enough countries where these people can hide, it's going to stay and survive. And so, with that being said, it's important for us to really build an industry around this. But I also think it's good that we have separate conferences. In the past we had more the RSA conference, which tried to cover all of these areas. But that is not really fitting Cloud Native and everything else. So I think it's good that we have these new opportunities, the Cloud Native one, but also what AWS brings up for someone. >> Yves, you just nailed it. It just comes down to simple math. It's a fraction. Revenue over cost. And if you could increase the hacker's cost, increase the denominator, their ROI will go down. And that is the game. >> Great point, Dave. What I'm hearing guys, and we can talk about technology for days and days. I know all of you. But there's, there's a big component that, that the elevation of Cloud Native Security, on its own as standalone is critical, as is the people component. You guys all talked about that. We talked about the cultural change necessary for that. Hopefully what we're seeing with Cloud Native Security Con 23, this first event is going to give us more insight over the next couple of days, and the next months or so, as to how this elevation, and how the people can come together to really help organizations from a math perspective as, as Dave talked about, really dial down the risks there, understand more of the vulnerabilities so that ransomware as a service is not as lucrative as it is today. Guys, so much appreciate your time, really breaking down Cloud Native Security, the value in it from different perspectives, and what your thoughts are on where it's going. Thanks so much for your time. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thanks, Lisa. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Yves. >> All right. For my guests, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE's day one coverage of Cloud Native Security Con 23. Thanks for watching. (rousing music)

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from the cube and E T R. This is breaking analysis with Dave Valante. >>Making technology predictions in 2022 was tricky business, especially if you were projecting the performance of markets or identifying I P O prospects and making binary forecast on data AI and the macro spending climate and other related topics in enterprise tech 2022, of course was characterized by a seesaw economy where central banks were restructuring their balance sheets. The war on Ukraine fueled inflation supply chains were a mess. And the unintended consequences of of forced march to digital and the acceleration still being sorted out. Hello and welcome to this week's weekly on Cube Insights powered by E T R. In this breaking analysis, we continue our annual tradition of transparently grading last year's enterprise tech predictions. And you may or may not agree with our self grading system, but look, we're gonna give you the data and you can draw your own conclusions and tell you what, tell us what you think. >>All right, let's get right to it. So our first prediction was tech spending increases by 8% in 2022. And as we exited 2021 CIOs, they were optimistic about their digital transformation plans. You know, they rushed to make changes to their business and were eager to sharpen their focus and continue to iterate on their digital business models and plug the holes that they, the, in the learnings that they had. And so we predicted that 8% rise in enterprise tech spending, which looked pretty good until Ukraine and the Fed decided that, you know, had to rush and make up for lost time. We kind of nailed the momentum in the energy sector, but we can't give ourselves too much credit for that layup. And as of October, Gartner had it spending growing at just over 5%. I think it was 5.1%. So we're gonna take a C plus on this one and, and move on. >>Our next prediction was basically kind of a slow ground ball. The second base, if I have to be honest, but we felt it was important to highlight that security would remain front and center as the number one priority for organizations in 2022. As is our tradition, you know, we try to up the degree of difficulty by specifically identifying companies that are gonna benefit from these trends. So we highlighted some possible I P O candidates, which of course didn't pan out. S NQ was on our radar. The company had just had to do another raise and they recently took a valuation hit and it was a down round. They raised 196 million. So good chunk of cash, but, but not the i p O that we had predicted Aqua Securities focus on containers and cloud native. That was a trendy call and we thought maybe an M SS P or multiple managed security service providers like Arctic Wolf would I p o, but no way that was happening in the crummy market. >>Nonetheless, we think these types of companies, they're still faring well as the talent shortage in security remains really acute, particularly in the sort of mid-size and small businesses that often don't have a sock Lacework laid off 20% of its workforce in 2022. And CO C e o Dave Hatfield left the company. So that I p o didn't, didn't happen. It was probably too early for Lacework. Anyway, meanwhile you got Netscope, which we've cited as strong in the E T R data as particularly in the emerging technology survey. And then, you know, I lumia holding its own, you know, we never liked that 7 billion price tag that Okta paid for auth zero, but we loved the TAM expansion strategy to target developers beyond sort of Okta's enterprise strength. But we gotta take some points off of the failure thus far of, of Okta to really nail the integration and the go to market model with azero and build, you know, bring that into the, the, the core Okta. >>So the focus on endpoint security that was a winner in 2022 is CrowdStrike led that charge with others holding their own, not the least of which was Palo Alto Networks as it continued to expand beyond its core network security and firewall business, you know, through acquisition. So overall we're gonna give ourselves an A minus for this relatively easy call, but again, we had some specifics associated with it to make it a little tougher. And of course we're watching ve very closely this this coming year in 2023. The vendor consolidation trend. You know, according to a recent Palo Alto network survey with 1300 SecOps pros on average organizations have more than 30 tools to manage security tools. So this is a logical way to optimize cost consolidating vendors and consolidating redundant vendors. The E T R data shows that's clearly a trend that's on the upswing. >>Now moving on, a big theme of 2020 and 2021 of course was remote work and hybrid work and new ways to work and return to work. So we predicted in 2022 that hybrid work models would become the dominant protocol, which clearly is the case. We predicted that about 33% of the workforce would come back to the office in 2022 in September. The E T R data showed that figure was at 29%, but organizations expected that 32% would be in the office, you know, pretty much full-time by year end. That hasn't quite happened, but we were pretty close with the projection, so we're gonna take an A minus on this one. Now, supply chain disruption was another big theme that we felt would carry through 2022. And sure that sounds like another easy one, but as is our tradition, again we try to put some binary metrics around our predictions to put some meat in the bone, so to speak, and and allow us than you to say, okay, did it come true or not? >>So we had some data that we presented last year and supply chain issues impacting hardware spend. We said at the time, you can see this on the left hand side of this chart, the PC laptop demand would remain above pre covid levels, which would reverse a decade of year on year declines, which I think started in around 2011, 2012. Now, while demand is down this year pretty substantially relative to 2021, I D C has worldwide unit shipments for PCs at just over 300 million for 22. If you go back to 2019 and you're looking at around let's say 260 million units shipped globally, you know, roughly, so, you know, pretty good call there. Definitely much higher than pre covid levels. But so what you might be asking why the B, well, we projected that 30% of customers would replace security appliances with cloud-based services and that more than a third would replace their internal data center server and storage hardware with cloud services like 30 and 40% respectively. >>And we don't have explicit survey data on exactly these metrics, but anecdotally we see this happening in earnest. And we do have some data that we're showing here on cloud adoption from ET R'S October survey where the midpoint of workloads running in the cloud is around 34% and forecast, as you can see, to grow steadily over the next three years. So this, well look, this is not, we understand it's not a one-to-one correlation with our prediction, but it's a pretty good bet that we were right, but we gotta take some points off, we think for the lack of unequivocal proof. Cause again, we always strive to make our predictions in ways that can be measured as accurate or not. Is it binary? Did it happen, did it not? Kind of like an O K R and you know, we strive to provide data as proof and in this case it's a bit fuzzy. >>We have to admit that although we're pretty comfortable that the prediction was accurate. And look, when you make an hard forecast, sometimes you gotta pay the price. All right, next, we said in 2022 that the big four cloud players would generate 167 billion in IS and PaaS revenue combining for 38% market growth. And our current forecasts are shown here with a comparison to our January, 2022 figures. So coming into this year now where we are today, so currently we expect 162 billion in total revenue and a 33% growth rate. Still very healthy, but not on our mark. So we think a w s is gonna miss our predictions by about a billion dollars, not, you know, not bad for an 80 billion company. So they're not gonna hit that expectation though of getting really close to a hundred billion run rate. We thought they'd exit the year, you know, closer to, you know, 25 billion a quarter and we don't think they're gonna get there. >>Look, we pretty much nailed Azure even though our prediction W was was correct about g Google Cloud platform surpassing Alibaba, Alibaba, we way overestimated the performance of both of those companies. So we're gonna give ourselves a C plus here and we think, yeah, you might think it's a little bit harsh, we could argue for a B minus to the professor, but the misses on GCP and Alibaba we think warrant a a self penalty on this one. All right, let's move on to our prediction about Supercloud. We said it becomes a thing in 2022 and we think by many accounts it has, despite the naysayers, we're seeing clear evidence that the concept of a layer of value add that sits above and across clouds is taking shape. And on this slide we showed just some of the pickup in the industry. I mean one of the most interesting is CloudFlare, the biggest supercloud antagonist. >>Charles Fitzgerald even predicted that no vendor would ever use the term in their marketing. And that would be proof if that happened that Supercloud was a thing and he said it would never happen. Well CloudFlare has, and they launched their version of Supercloud at their developer week. Chris Miller of the register put out a Supercloud block diagram, something else that Charles Fitzgerald was, it was was pushing us for, which is rightly so, it was a good call on his part. And Chris Miller actually came up with one that's pretty good at David Linthicum also has produced a a a A block diagram, kind of similar, David uses the term metacloud and he uses the term supercloud kind of interchangeably to describe that trend. And so we we're aligned on that front. Brian Gracely has covered the concept on the popular cloud podcast. Berkeley launched the Sky computing initiative. >>You read through that white paper and many of the concepts highlighted in the Supercloud 3.0 community developed definition align with that. Walmart launched a platform with many of the supercloud salient attributes. So did Goldman Sachs, so did Capital One, so did nasdaq. So you know, sorry you can hate the term, but very clearly the evidence is gathering for the super cloud storm. We're gonna take an a plus on this one. Sorry, haters. Alright, let's talk about data mesh in our 21 predictions posts. We said that in the 2020s, 75% of large organizations are gonna re-architect their big data platforms. So kind of a decade long prediction. We don't like to do that always, but sometimes it's warranted. And because it was a longer term prediction, we, at the time in, in coming into 22 when we were evaluating our 21 predictions, we took a grade of incomplete because the sort of decade long or majority of the decade better part of the decade prediction. >>So last year, earlier this year, we said our number seven prediction was data mesh gains momentum in 22. But it's largely confined and narrow data problems with limited scope as you can see here with some of the key bullets. So there's a lot of discussion in the data community about data mesh and while there are an increasing number of examples, JP Morgan Chase, Intuit, H S P C, HelloFresh, and others that are completely rearchitecting parts of their data platform completely rearchitecting entire data platforms is non-trivial. There are organizational challenges, there're data, data ownership, debates, technical considerations, and in particular two of the four fundamental data mesh principles that the, the need for a self-service infrastructure and federated computational governance are challenging. Look, democratizing data and facilitating data sharing creates conflicts with regulatory requirements around data privacy. As such many organizations are being really selective with their data mesh implementations and hence our prediction of narrowing the scope of data mesh initiatives. >>I think that was right on J P M C is a good example of this, where you got a single group within a, within a division narrowly implementing the data mesh architecture. They're using a w s, they're using data lakes, they're using Amazon Glue, creating a catalog and a variety of other techniques to meet their objectives. They kind of automating data quality and it was pretty well thought out and interesting approach and I think it's gonna be made easier by some of the announcements that Amazon made at the recent, you know, reinvent, particularly trying to eliminate ET t l, better connections between Aurora and Redshift and, and, and better data sharing the data clean room. So a lot of that is gonna help. Of course, snowflake has been on this for a while now. Many other companies are facing, you know, limitations as we said here and this slide with their Hadoop data platforms. They need to do new, some new thinking around that to scale. HelloFresh is a really good example of this. Look, the bottom line is that organizations want to get more value from data and having a centralized, highly specialized teams that own the data problem, it's been a barrier and a blocker to success. The data mesh starts with organizational considerations as described in great detail by Ash Nair of Warner Brothers. So take a listen to this clip. >>Yeah, so when people think of Warner Brothers, you always think of like the movie studio, but we're more than that, right? I mean, you think of H B O, you think of t n t, you think of C N N. We have 30 plus brands in our portfolio and each have their own needs. So the, the idea of a data mesh really helps us because what we can do is we can federate access across the company so that, you know, CNN can work at their own pace. You know, when there's election season, they can ingest their own data and they don't have to, you know, bump up against, as an example, HBO if Game of Thrones is going on. >>So it's often the case that data mesh is in the eyes of the implementer. And while a company's implementation may not strictly adhere to Jamma Dani's vision of data mesh, and that's okay, the goal is to use data more effectively. And despite Gartner's attempts to deposition data mesh in favor of the somewhat confusing or frankly far more confusing data fabric concept that they stole from NetApp data mesh is taking hold in organizations globally today. So we're gonna take a B on this one. The prediction is shaping up the way we envision, but as we previously reported, it's gonna take some time. The better part of a decade in our view, new standards have to emerge to make this vision become reality and they'll come in the form of both open and de facto approaches. Okay, our eighth prediction last year focused on the face off between Snowflake and Databricks. >>And we realized this popular topic, and maybe one that's getting a little overplayed, but these are two companies that initially, you know, looked like they were shaping up as partners and they, by the way, they are still partnering in the field. But you go back a couple years ago, the idea of using an AW w s infrastructure, Databricks machine intelligence and applying that on top of Snowflake as a facile data warehouse, still very viable. But both of these companies, they have much larger ambitions. They got big total available markets to chase and large valuations that they have to justify. So what's happening is, as we've previously reported, each of these companies is moving toward the other firm's core domain and they're building out an ecosystem that'll be critical for their future. So as part of that effort, we said each is gonna become aggressive investors and maybe start doing some m and a and they have in various companies. >>And on this chart that we produced last year, we studied some of the companies that were targets and we've added some recent investments of both Snowflake and Databricks. As you can see, they've both, for example, invested in elation snowflake's, put money into Lacework, the Secur security firm, ThoughtSpot, which is trying to democratize data with ai. Collibra is a governance platform and you can see Databricks investments in data transformation with D B T labs, Matillion doing simplified business intelligence hunters. So that's, you know, they're security investment and so forth. So other than our thought that we'd see Databricks I p o last year, this prediction been pretty spot on. So we'll give ourselves an A on that one. Now observability has been a hot topic and we've been covering it for a while with our friends at E T R, particularly Eric Bradley. Our number nine prediction last year was basically that if you're not cloud native and observability, you are gonna be in big trouble. >>So everything guys gotta go cloud native. And that's clearly been the case. Splunk, the big player in the space has been transitioning to the cloud, hasn't always been pretty, as we reported, Datadog real momentum, the elk stack, that's open source model. You got new entrants that we've cited before, like observe, honeycomb, chaos search and others that we've, we've reported on, they're all born in the cloud. So we're gonna take another a on this one, admittedly, yeah, it's a re reasonably easy call, but you gotta have a few of those in the mix. Okay, our last prediction, our number 10 was around events. Something the cube knows a little bit about. We said that a new category of events would emerge as hybrid and that for the most part is happened. So that's gonna be the mainstay is what we said. That pure play virtual events are gonna give way to hi hybrid. >>And the narrative is that virtual only events are, you know, they're good for quick hits, but lousy replacements for in-person events. And you know that said, organizations of all shapes and sizes, they learn how to create better virtual content and support remote audiences during the pandemic. So when we set at pure play is gonna give way to hybrid, we said we, we i we implied or specific or specified that the physical event that v i p experience is going defined. That overall experience and those v i p events would create a little fomo, fear of, of missing out in a virtual component would overlay that serves an audience 10 x the size of the physical. We saw that really two really good examples. Red Hat Summit in Boston, small event, couple thousand people served tens of thousands, you know, online. Second was Google Cloud next v i p event in, in New York City. >>Everything else was, was, was, was virtual. You know, even examples of our prediction of metaverse like immersion have popped up and, and and, and you know, other companies are doing roadshow as we predicted like a lot of companies are doing it. You're seeing that as a major trend where organizations are going with their sales teams out into the regions and doing a little belly to belly action as opposed to the big giant event. That's a definitely a, a trend that we're seeing. So in reviewing this prediction, the grade we gave ourselves is, you know, maybe a bit unfair, it should be, you could argue for a higher grade, but the, but the organization still haven't figured it out. They have hybrid experiences but they generally do a really poor job of leveraging the afterglow and of event of an event. It still tends to be one and done, let's move on to the next event or the next city. >>Let the sales team pick up the pieces if they were paying attention. So because of that, we're only taking a B plus on this one. Okay, so that's the review of last year's predictions. You know, overall if you average out our grade on the 10 predictions that come out to a b plus, I dunno why we can't seem to get that elusive a, but we're gonna keep trying our friends at E T R and we are starting to look at the data for 2023 from the surveys and all the work that we've done on the cube and our, our analysis and we're gonna put together our predictions. We've had literally hundreds of inbounds from PR pros pitching us. We've got this huge thick folder that we've started to review with our yellow highlighter. And our plan is to review it this month, take a look at all the data, get some ideas from the inbounds and then the e t R of January surveys in the field. >>It's probably got a little over a thousand responses right now. You know, they'll get up to, you know, 1400 or so. And once we've digested all that, we're gonna go back and publish our predictions for 2023 sometime in January. So stay tuned for that. All right, we're gonna leave it there for today. You wanna thank Alex Myerson who's on production and he manages the podcast, Ken Schiffman as well out of our, our Boston studio. I gotta really heartfelt thank you to Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight and their team. They helped get the word out on social and in our newsletters. Rob Ho is our editor in chief over at Silicon Angle who does some great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these podcasts are available or all these episodes are available is podcasts. Wherever you listen, just all you do Search Breaking analysis podcast, really getting some great traction there. Appreciate you guys subscribing. I published each week on wikibon.com, silicon angle.com or you can email me directly at david dot valante silicon angle.com or dm me Dante, or you can comment on my LinkedIn post. And please check out ETR AI for the very best survey data in the enterprise tech business. Some awesome stuff in there. This is Dante for the Cube Insights powered by etr. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on breaking analysis.

>>The Cube presents Ignite 22, brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >>Welcome back everyone. We're so glad that you're still with us. It's the Cube Live at the MGM Grand. This is our second day of coverage of Palo Alto Networks Ignite. This is takeaways from Ignite 22. Lisa Martin here with two really smart guys, Dave Valante. Dave, we're joined by one of our cube alumni, a friend, a friend of the, we say friend of the Cube. >>Yeah, otc. A friend of the Cube >>Karala joined us. Guys, it's great to have you here. It's been an exciting show. A lot of cybersecurity is one of my favorite topics to talk about. But I'd love to get some of the big takeaways from both of you. Dave, we'll start with you. >>A breathing room from two weeks ago. Yeah, that was, that was really pleasant. You know, I mean, I know was, yes, you sat in the analyst program, interested in what your takeaways were from there. But, you know, coming into this, we wrote a piece, Palo Alto's Gold Standard, what they need to do to, to keep that, that status. And we hear it a lot about consolidation. That's their big theme now, which is timely, right? Cause people wanna save money, they wanna do more with less. But I'm really interested in hearing zeus's thoughts on how that's playing in the market. How customers, how easy is it to just say, oh, hey, I'm gonna consolidate. I wanna get into that a little bit with you, how well the strategy's working. We're gonna get into some of the m and a activity and really bring your perspectives to the table. Well, >>It's, it's not easy. I mean, people have been calling for the consolidation of security for decades, and it's, it's, they're the first company that's actually made it happen. Right? And, and I think this is what we're seeing here is the culmination of this long term strategy, this company trying to build more of a platform. And they, you know, they, they came out as a firewall vendor. And I think it's safe to say they're more than firewall today. That's only about two thirds of their revenue now. So down from 80% a few years ago. And when I think of what Palo Alto has become, they're really a data company. Now, if you look at, you know, unit 42 in Cortex, the, the, the Cortex Data Lake, they've done an excellent job of taking telemetry from their products and from the acquisitions they have, right? And bringing that together into one big data lake. >>And then they're able to use that to, to do faster threat notification, forensics, things like that. And so I think the old model of security of create signatures for known threats, it's safe to say it never really worked and it wasn't ever gonna work. You had too many day zero exploits and things. The only way to fight security today is with a AI and ML based analytics. And they have, they're the gold standard. I think the one thing about your post that I would add the gold standard from a data standpoint, and that's given them this competitive advantage to go out and become a platform for a security. Which, like I said, the people have tried to do that for years. And the first one that's actually done it, well, >>We've heard this from some of the startups, like Lacework will say, oh, we treat security as a data problem. Of course there's a startup, Palo Alto's got, you know, whatever, 10, 15 years of, of, of history. But one of the things I wanted to explore with you coming into this was the notion of can you be best of breed and develop a suite? And we, we've been hearing a consistent answer to that question, which is, and, and do you need to, and the answer is, well, best of breed in security requires that full spectrum, that full view. So here's my question to you. So, okay, let's take Esty win relatively new for these guys, right? Yeah. Okay. And >>And one of the few products are not top two, top three in, right? Exactly. >>Yeah. So that's why I want to take that. Yeah. Because in bakeoffs, they're gonna lose on a head-to-head best of breed. And so the customer's gonna say, Hey, you know, I love your, your consolidation play, your esty win's. Just, okay, how about a little discount on that? And you know, these guys are premium priced. Yes. So, you know, are they in essentially through their pricing strategies, sort of creating that stuff, fighting that, is that friction for them where they've got, you know, the customer says, all right, well forget it, we're gonna go stove pipe with the SD WAN will consolidate some of the stuff. Are you seeing that? >>Yeah, I, I, I still think the sales model is that way. And I think that's something they need to work on changing. If they get into a situation where they have to get down into a feature battle of my SD WAN versus your SD wan, my firewall versus your firewall, frankly they've already lost, you know, because their value prop is the suite and, and is the platform. And I was talking to the CISO here that told me, he realizes now that you don't need best of breed everywhere to have best in class threat protection. In fact, best of breed everywhere leads to suboptimal threat protection. Cuz you have all these data data sets that are in silos, right? And so from a data scientist standpoint, right, there's the good data leads to good insights. Well, partial data leads to fragmented insights and that's, that's what the best, best of breed approach gives you. And so I was talking with Palo about this, can they have this vision of being best of breed and platform? I don't really think you can maintain best of breed everywhere across this portfolio this big, but you don't need to. >>That was my second point of my >>Question. That's the point. >>Yeah. And so, cuz cuz because you know, we've talked about this, that that sweets always win in the long run, >>Sweets >>Win. Yeah. But here's the thing, I, I wonder to your your point about, you know, the customer, you know, understanding that that that, that this resonates with them. I, my guess is a lot of customers, you know, at that mid-level and the fat middle are like still sort of wed, you know, hugging that, that tool. So there's, there's work to be done here, but I think they, they, they got it right Because if they devolve, to your point, if they devolve down to that speeds and feeds, eh, what's the point of that? Where's their valuable? >>You do not wanna get into a knife fight. And I, and I, and I think for them the, a big challenge now is convincing customers that the suite, the suite approach does work. And they have to be able to do that in actual customer examples. And so, you know, I I interviewed a bunch of customers here and the ones that have bought into XDR and xor and even are looking at their sim have told me that the, the, so think of soc operations, the old way heavily manually oriented, right? You have multiple panes of glass and you know, and then you've got, so there's a lot of people work before you bring the tools in, right? If done correctly with AI and ml, the machines would do all the heavy lifting and then you'd bring people in at the end to clean up the little bits that were missed, right? >>And so you, you moved to, from something that was very people heavy to something that's machine heavy and machines can work a lot faster than people. And the, and so the ones that I've talked that have, that have done that have said, look, our engineers have moved on to a lot different things. They're doing penetration testing, they're, you know, helping us with, with strategy and they're not fighting that, that daily fight of looking through log files. And the only proof point you need, Dave, is look at every big breach that we've had over the last five years. There's some SIM vendor up there that says, we caught it. Yeah. >>Yeah. We we had the data. >>Yeah. But, but, but the security team missed it. Well they missed it because you're, nobody can look at that much data manually. And so the, I I think their approach of relying heavily on machines to fight the fight is actually the right way. >>Is that a differentiator for them versus, we were talking before we went live that you and I first hit our very first segment back in 2017 at Fort Net. Is that, where do the two stand in your >>Yeah, it's funny cuz if you talk to the two vendors, they don't really see each other in a lot of accounts because Fort Net's more small market mid-market. It's the same strategy to some degree where Fort Net relies heavily on in-house development and Palo Alto relies heavily on acquisition. Yeah. And so I think from a consistently feature set, you know, Fort Net has an advantage there because it, it's all run off their, their their silicon. Where, where Palo's able to innovate very quickly. The, it it requires a lot of work right? To, to bring the front end and back ends together. But they're serving different markets. So >>Do you see that as a differentiator? The integration strategy that Palo Alto has as a differentiator? We talk to so many companies who have an a strong m and a strategy and, and execution arm. But the challenge is always integrating the technology so that the customer to, you know, ultimately it's the customer. >>I actually think they're, they're underrated as a, an acquirer. In fact, Dave wrote a post to a prior on Silicon Angle prior to Accelerate and he, he on, you put it on Twitter and you asked people to rank 'em as an acquirer and they were in the middle of the pack, >>Right? It was, it was. So it was Oracle, VMware, emc, ibm, Cisco, ServiceNow, and Palo Alto. Yeah. Or Oracle got very high marks. It was like 8.5 out of, you know, 10. Yeah. VMware I think was 6.5. Nice. Era was high emc, big range. IBM five to seven. Cisco was three to eight. Yeah. Yeah, right. ServiceNow was a seven. And then, yeah, Palo Alto was like a five. And I, which I think it was unfair. >>Well, and I think it depends on how you look at it. And I, so I think a lot of the acquisitions Palo Altos made, they've done a good job of integrating their backend data and they've almost ignored the front end. And so when you buy some of the products, it's a little clunky today. You know, if you work with Prisma Cloud, it could be a little bit cleaner. And even with, you know, the SD wan that took 'em a long time to bring CloudGenix in and stuff. But I think the approach is right. I don't, I don't necessarily believe you should integrate the front end until you've integrated the back end. >>That's >>The hard part, right? Because UL ultimately what you're gonna get, you're gonna get two panes of glass and one pane of glass and it might look pretty all mush together, but ultimately you're not solving the bigger problem, right. Of, of being able to create that big data like the, the fight security. And so I think, you know, the approach they've taken is the right one. I think from a user standpoint, maybe it doesn't show up as neatly because you don't see the frontend integration, but the way they're doing it is the right way to do it. And I'm glad they're doing it that way versus caving to the pressures of what, you know, the industry might want >>Showed up in the performance of the company. I mean, this company was basically gonna double revenues to 7 billion from 2020 to >>2023. Three. Think about that at that, that >>Make a, that's unbelievable, right? I mean, and then and they wanna double again. Yeah. You know, so, well >>What did, what did Nikesh was quoted as saying they wanna be the first cyber company that's a hundred billion dollars. He didn't give a timeline market cap. >>Right. >>Market cap, right. Do what I wanna get both of your opinions on what you saw and heard and felt this week. What do you think the likelihood is? And and do you have any projections on how, you know, how many years it's gonna take for them to get there? >>Well, >>Well I think so if they're gonna get that big, right? And, and we were talking about this pre-show, any company that's becoming a big company does it through ecosystem >>Bingo. >>Right? And that when you look around the show floor, it's not that impressive. And if that, if there's an area they need to focus on, it's building that ecosystem. And it's not with other security vendors, it's with application vendors and it's with the cloud companies and stuff. And they've got some relationships there, but they need to do more. I actually challenge 'em on that. One of the analyst sessions. They said, look, we've got 800 cortex partners. Well where are they? Right? Why isn't there a cortex stand here with a bunch of the small companies here? So I do think that that is an area they need to focus on. If they are gonna get to that, that market caps number, they will do so do so through ecosystem. Because every company that's achieved that has done it through ecosystem. >>A hundred percent agree. And you know, if you look at CrowdStrike's ecosystem, it's pretty similar. Yeah. You know, it doesn't really, you know, make much, much, not much different from this, but I went back and just looked at some, you know, peak valuations during the pandemic and shortly thereafter CrowdStrike was 70 billion. You know, that's what their roughly their peak Palo Alto was 56, fortune was 59 for the actually diverged. Right. And now Palo Alto has taken the, the top mantle, you know, today it's market cap's 52. So it's held 93% of its peak value. Everybody else is tanking. Even Okta was 45 billion. It's been crushed as you well know. But, so Palo Alto wasn't always, you know, the number one in terms of market cap. But I guess my point is, look, if CrowdStrike could got to 70 billion during Yeah. During the frenzy, I think it's gonna take, to answer your question, I think it's gonna be five years. Okay. Before they get back there. I think this market's gonna be tough for a while from a valuation standpoint. I think generally tech is gonna kind of go up and down and sideways for a good year and a half, maybe even two years could be even longer. And then I think there's gonna be some next wave of productivity innovation that that hits. And then you're gonna, you're almost always gonna exceed the previous highs. It's gonna take a while. Yeah, >>Yeah, yeah. But I think their ability to disrupt the SIM market actually is something I, I believe they're gonna do. I've been calling for the death of the sim for a long time and I know some people at Palo Alto are very cautious about saying that cuz the Splunks and the, you know, they're, they're their partners. But I, I think the, you know, it's what I said before, the, the tools are catching them, but they're, it's not in a way that's useful for the IT pro and, but I, I don't think the SIM vendors have that ecosystem of insight across network cloud endpoint. Right. Which is what you need in order to make a sim useful. >>CISO at an ETR roundtable said, if, if it weren't for my regulators, I would chuck my sim. >>Yes. >>But that's the only reason that, that this person was keeping it. So, >>Yeah. And I think the, the fact that most of those companies have moved to a perpetual MO or a a recurring revenue model actually helps unseat them. Typically when you pour a bunch of money into something, you remember the old computer associate days, nobody ever took it out cuz the sunk dollars you spent to do it. But now that you're paying an annual recurring fee, it's actually makes it easier to take out. So >>Yeah, it's it's an ebb and flow, right? Yeah. Because the maintenance costs were, you know, relatively low. Maybe it was 20% of the total. And then, you know, once every five years you had to do a refresh and you were still locked into the sort of maintenance and, and so yeah, I think you're right. The switching costs with sas, you know, in theory anyway, should be less >>Yeah. As long as you can migrate the data over. And I think they've got a pretty good handle on that. So, >>Yeah. So guys, I wanna get your perspective as a whole bunch of announcements here. We've only been here for a couple days, not a big conference as, as you can see from behind us. What Zs in your opinion was Palo Alto's main message and and what do you think about it main message at this event? And then same question for you. >>Yeah, I, I think their message largely wrapped around disruption, right? And, and they, in The's keynote already talked about that, right? And where they disrupted the firewall market by creating a NextGen firewall. In fact, if you look at all the new services they added to their firewall, you, you could almost say it's a NextGen NextGen firewall. But, but I do think the, the work they've done in the area of cloud and cortex actually I think is, is pretty impressive. And I think that's the, the SOC is ripe for disruption because it's for, for the most part, most socks still, you know, run off legacy playbooks. They run off legacy, you know, forensic models and things and they don't work. It's why we have so many breaches today. The, the dirty little secret that nobody ever wants to talk about is the bad guys are using machine learning, right? And so if you're using a signature based model, all they're do is tweak their model a little bit and it becomes, it bypasses them. So I, I think the only way to fight the the bad guys today is with you gotta fight fire with fire. And I think that's, that's the path they've, they've headed >>Down and the bad guys are hiding in plain sight, you know? >>Yeah, yeah. Well it's, it's not hard to do now with a lot of those legacy tools. So >>I think, I think for me, you know, the stat that we threw out earlier, I think yesterday at our keynote analysis was, you know, the ETR data shows that are, that are that last survey around 35% of the respondents said we are actively consolidating, sorry, 44%, sorry, 35 says we're actively consolidating vendors, redundant vendors today. That number's up to 44%. Yeah. It's by far the number one cost optimization technique. That's what these guys are pitching. And I think it's gonna resonate with people and, and I think to your point, they're integrating at the backend, their beeps are technical, right? I mean, they can deal with that complexity. Yeah. And so they don't need eye candy. Eventually they, they, they want to have that cuz it'll allow 'em to have deeper market penetration and make people more productive. But you know, that consolidation message came through loud and clear. >>Yeah. The big change in this industry too is all the new startups are all cloud native, right? They're all built on Amazon or Google or whatever. Yeah. And when your cloud native and you buy a cloud native integration is fast. It's not like having to integrate this big monolithic software stack anymore. Right. So I I think their pace of integration will only accelerate from here because everything's now cloud native. >>If a customer comes to you or when a customer comes to you and says, Zs help us with this cyber transformation we have, our board isn't necessarily with our executives in terms of execution of a security strategy. How do you advise them where Palo Alto is concerned? >>Yeah. You know, a lot, a lot of this is just fighting legacy mindset. And I've, I was talking with some CISOs here from state and local governments and things and they're, you know, they can't get more budget. They're fighting the tide. But what they did find is through the use of automation technology, they're able to bring their people costs way down. Right. And then be able to use that budget to invest in a lot of new projects. And so with that, you, you have to start with your biggest pain points, apply automation where you can, and then be able to use that budget to reinvest back in your security strategy. And it's good for the IT pros too, the security pros, my advice to, to it pros is if you're doing things today that aren't resume building, stop doing them. Right? Find a way to automate the money your job. And so if you're patching systems and you're looking through log files, there's no reason machines can't do that. And you go do something a lot more interesting. >>So true. It's like storage guys 10 years ago, provisioning loans. Yes. It's like, stop doing that. Yeah. You're gonna be outta a job. And so who, last question I have is, is who do you see as the big competitors, the horses on the track question, right? So obviously Cisco kind of service has led for a while and you know, big portfolio company, CrowdStrike coming at it from end point. You know who, who, who do you see as the real players going for that? You know, right now the market's three to 4%. The leader has three, three 4% of the market. You know who they're all going for? 10, 15, maybe 20% of the market. Who, who are the likely candidates? Yeah, >>I don't know if CrowdStrike really has the breadth of portfolio to compete long term though. I I think they've had a nice run, but I, we might start to see the follow 'em. I think Microsoft is gonna be for middle. They've laid down the gauntlet, right? They are a security vendor, right? We, we were at Reinvent and a AWS is the platform for security vendors. Yes. Middle, somewhere in the middle. But Microsoft make no mistake, they're in security. They've got some good products. I think a lot of 'em are kind of good enough and they, they tie it to the licensing and I'm not sure that works in security, but they've certainly got the ear of a lot of it pros. >>It might work in smb. >>Yeah. Yeah. It, it might. And, and I do like Zscaler. I, I know these guys poo poo the proxy model, but they've, they've done about as much with proxies as you can. And I, I think it's, it's a battle of, I love the, the, the near, you know, proxies are dead and Jay's model, you know, Jay over at c skater throw 'em back at 'em. So I, it's good to see that kind of fight going on between the two. >>Oh, it's great. Well, and, and again, ZScaler's coming at it from their cloud security angle. CrowdStrike's coming at it from endpoint. I, I do think CrowdStrike has an opportunity to build out the portfolio through m and a and maybe ecosystem. And then obviously, you know, Palo Alto's getting it done. How about Cisco? >>Yeah. Cisco's interesting. And I, I think if Cisco can make the network matter in security and it should, right? We're talking about how a lot of you need a lot of forensics to fight security today. Well, they're gonna see things long before anybody else because they have all that network data. If they can tie network security, I, I mean they could really have that business take off. But we've been saying that about Cisco for 20 years. >>But big install based though. Yeah. It's hard for a company, any company to just say, okay, hey Cisco customer sweep the floor and come with us. That's, that's >>A tough thing. They have a lot of good peace parts, right? And like duo's a good product and umbrella's a good product. They've, they've not done a good job. >>They're the opposite of these guys. >>They've not done a good job of the backend integration that, that's where Cisco needs to, to focus. And I do think g G two Patel there fixed the WebEx group and I think he's now, in fact when you talk to him, he's doing very little on WebEx that that group's running itself and he's more focused in security. So I, I think we could see a resurgence there. But you know, they have a, from a revenue perspective, it's a little misleading cuz they have this big legacy base that's in decline while they're moving to cloud and stuff. So, but they, but they, there's a lot of work there're trying to, to tie to network. >>Right. Lots of fuel for conversation. We're gonna have to carry this on, on Silicon angle.com guys. Yes. And Wikibon, lets do see us. Thank you so much for joining Dave and me giving us your insights as to this event. Where are you gonna be next? Are you gonna be on vacation? >>There's nothing more fun than mean on the cube, so, right. What's outside of that though? Yeah, you know, Christmas coming up, I gotta go see family and do the obligatory, although for me that's a lot of travel, so I guess >>More planes. Yeah. >>Hopefully not in Vegas. >>Not in Vegas. >>Awesome. Nothing against Vegas. Yeah, no, >>We love it. We >>Love it. Although I will say my year started off with ces. Yeah. And it's finishing up with Palo Alto here. The bookends. Yeah, exactly. In Vegas bookends. >>Well thanks so much for joining us. Thank you Dave. Always a pleasure to host a show with you and hear your insights. Reading your breaking analysis always kicks off my prep for show and it's always great to see, but predictions come true. So thank you for being my co-host bet. All right. For Dave Valante Enz as Carla, I'm Lisa Martin. You've been watching The Cube, the leader in live, emerging and enterprise tech coverage. Thanks for watching.