 Hello and welcome to episode 12 of theCUBE Pod. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. Every week we break down the, what's on theCUBE's mind, what we're looking at, where we've been and the top stories in tech, what's on the Wall Street Journal, what's in the New York Times. We're going to analyze the top news going on in mainstream media that relates to the enterprise and the emerging tech of course, AI. And we're going to go in and also talk about what we're looking at down in the trenches, day-to-day operations of theCUBE. We're in all the hot areas, AI, cloud, cloud native developers, cyber security. Dave, great to see episode 12. We're getting our groove on 12 episode. You know, we're getting the feel for the format. You get the tie on. I got the hoodie. I think that speaks volumes. How's that Wall Street Journal? I saw you reading earlier. Got the paper. Yeah, I'm all. Hey, great. Great, it's a lot of articles in the Wall Street Journal that actually we want to reference as a context to some of the hot topics. I mean, just again, I think in the past four days, AI is just thundering this week. It's so much action. I had a great tweet. I tweeted around from an AI guy who said, here's what's happened this week. And just like six major things happened this week. We'll go down there. Of course, the top story, at least in my mind, I love to get your thoughts is Sam Altman in Congress, in front of Congress doing his thing. And so that was huge because one, Sam Altman's a young guy. He's not well known in the mainstream. He ran Y Combinator, was the co-founder somewhat of OpenAI. But he did a good job. I thought it was great. There's also kind of political theater which we'll get in on the ranch section. The Supreme Court rules in favor of Google around this section 230. That's going to be a can of worms. AI everywhere, innovation impact. What is this an inflection point? Open versus closed. Big guys extracting the rent. Small guys, will they win? Is it a revolution or an evolution? And of course, enterprise section, open source is driving a lot of value. We're cloud native. We've got a lot of events coming up. And I know I want to talk about productivity because you have a great angle on why productivity is a benchmark. And of course, we've got our ranch section, Dave. I got Elon is in there. AI hype, so much. Let's start with AI. What's your take? You know, it's interesting, John, is you remember, of course you do, when you first started using the internet and using email, it was like blown away. You know, you'd be in AOL and chat rooms. Like, this is incredible. And you look back and it really sucked. You know what I mean? And so I find that, you know, I'm blown away by chat GPT and Bard and all the AI momentum. But in many respects, it's amazing. But it's just, in many respects, not that good. All right, so since Google IO and the new Bard, I've been keeping browsers open, one for Bard, one for chat GPT. And I've been doing kind of an A-B test. And they're really different. Sometimes Bard is better, sometimes chat GPT is better. And then they also change. I found, in some cases, Bard was better a month ago than it is now. The other thing, I don't know if you've noticed this, now every time you go into chat GPT is, as of my last update in September 21, so they put in these, these I guess are guardrails, I guess. After my last update in September 22nd, you might need to look at more recent details. So they're like putting in these caveats. Are those guardrails? Is that meant to protect us? I mean, it's weird. But I think my point being, 10 years from now we're going to go, hey, John, remember when we first started using chat GPT? Wow, it was kind of a joke. We're going to take it for granted. I just think it's going to like explode. But right now, I think we're going to look back and say, wow, it really wasn't that good. It's interesting, I get asked all the time, which better, chat GPT or Bard? I'm like, I got to say, I think chat GPT is better than Bard. Again, Bard has good days and bad days. It's like, it's like any human. Having a good day today or not on a good day, hungover, hallucinating implies all kinds of like, off the rails. But I think definitely chat GPT is better. But still the complaint I had with chat GPT is I'm a subscriber and I don't get the plus, which just gets me four. I'm not getting the updates. I'm not getting the plugin. I got to go and sign up different things. They're moving so fast. I'm not getting the updates. We have to kind of make a better choice there. And it could make that easier, in my opinion, for users. Obviously we got our developers working on some advanced stuff on cube data with our own LL. So that's going to be its own foundational model. Cube, cube, linguistics. You know, we talk a lot about art. You're definitely not paying for the service for GPT-4 because you're right. You got to go hunting and pecking for all the good stuff. But your point though is really right on. And we're going to get in this section that we're going to get into after we get in some of the news is that when you talk about the web like that, that's a disruptive shift because the early days were crude and the elementary very embryonic, as they say in business school. And what that means is that it doesn't look good enough for the mainstream and the existing mainstream players that service that market look at it as a toy, incomplete, inadequate. Oh, it's on the cutting bleeding edge. Dial up was slow. AOL chat rooms were lame. The graphics sucked. But people who saw that through that were like, this is totally game changing because the alternative, if this goes successful, which you can see clearly, is that would replace direct response. I don't have to do mail. I can get self-service on finding information. And of course, finding what you're looking for became a Google search thing. And so you had a lot of people coming in. That completely changed the world. That was a world changing moment. The PC before that, Ken Olson said, that's a toy. No, a PC will never be on anyone's home in anyone's home. Of course, that's the famous founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, Ken Olson, who said that there was public comments. A PC at home, why would anyone want a PC at home? Says the king of the mini computer. Hence, they're out of business. They're not around anymore. I mean, I remember, well, PC adoption. I used to PC when I was in college, when I was programming. But when you went to work in the early 80s, there weren't really many PCs on the desks. We at IDC, we had these Wang terminals. It was a mini computer, right? And we would do all the reports on Wang terminals and we would do all the spreadsheet work. There were no spreadsheets. You do it on log graph paper. And then I remember we all got Lotus training. And it was game changing. We got a PC and we had to sign up and share. First of all, nobody used the PC at the beginning and then people started to use it. And then all of a sudden PCs started to pop up. I shared an office with somebody, we shared a PC and then we got our own PCs. And then everybody had a PC and then we networked the PC in a lend. You could just see the whole thing exploding. And the people who didn't poo poo it, like the Michael Dells of the world became billionaires and because Ken Olson was extremely successful, but there's as John Chambers says, there's no entitlement and they were all out of business. Yeah, and I think we're going to get into this in the third section of this initial block of commentary around the innovation impact and the question will be, are we on this third major revolution, major revolution inflection point? And if that's the case, there will be new billionaires. There will be people going out of business. Or will they? And is it different? And we're going to compare it. We're going to go into that. Let's get into the top news. Open AI, Sam Maltman was in front of Congress. All the people saying, hey, we need to be regulated. That is such BS in my opinion. That's going to be one of my rant sections, but I want to just say that that was very compelling that he was like admitting that he's got a fear of AI. When asked, and it wasn't about fear of job loss, which I think is a BS argument. It was fear that the world, something bad would happen in the world, which we talked about on two pods ago around a plain in the Hudson moment, referencing the Twitter moment where everyone saw Twitter value. Like, okay, I get it, Twitter works that way. So he's kind of agreeing with us, Dave, that he's fearful of a moment where something bad could happen with AI. And that's where it kicks in the old Terminator, old guys like us like, oh yeah, the Terminator, Skynet. I don't know if I agree with that fully, but I do think he's onto something there. And also I thought his presentation was strong. He came across great for the industry. I thought it was a little bit staged. IBM was there. I thought IBM did awesome. They were kind of the firm corporate company, although they got work to do on AI, which we can riff on the enterprise section. Sam was great. I didn't know that he has no equity in open AI, which he disclosed when asked, are you rich? And he's like, didn't he say, by the way, he is rich, by the way, but he's not making any equity on open AI. Didn't he say something like his salary didn't include healthcare or something like that? It's like, what was that? He's a wealthy individual. He's rich. He's not poor. Let's put it this way. He's not poor, okay? But to your point about the dangers, like Trump the other day was saying we should arm teachers. Like there's a lot of teachers who used to be in the military. So we should give them firearms to protect for these crazy people going into schools. Whether you agree with that or not, you could envision a day where somebody says, okay, let's give some robot, because you can't afford to necessarily arm every school or put security in every school. You probably should do it anyway, but let's put a robot there with firearms to protect people. Well, what happens if that robot gets hacked and all of a sudden starts shooting people? And then if you fast forward, I don't know how many years, 50, 100 years, if there are machines that are autodidactic that can learn on their own that are more intelligent than humans, they become our overlords. And that's the sort of scenario. I don't know what the probability of that is, but it's probably not impossible that that happens. And so people I think are rightfully concerned about that. Like you always say, everything in the movies becomes true except teleporting. And that's a scary scenario. Everything on Star Trek and Star Wars will be real. I think that's gonna be most of those developers who watch those movies. I think it's a very sci-fi moment, but to your point, AI is early, right? We're gonna get that section and we're gonna talk about the innovation piece. Remember Lost in Space? I remember when the robot went crazy, he like lost his mind and he turned into like the evil robot and they had to reprogram him, right? There is a little bit of that going on in the robotics and Elon Musk thinks he's got the best AI. We'll get to that. Again, we'll get to this. Let's stay with all of them. So I know you like to rant about the government which we're getting to in the policy side of things, but a couple of things I thought Congress was just absolutely trying to get votes. They were trying to look hip, like they're into the AI thing, but yet also cautiously optimistic and asking the most dumbest questions again as highlights why people like Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg and all these other tech legends who have monopolies and the machines that screw things up. I mean like people at Facebook right now, people might not know this, but a lot of people who work and made a lot of money at Facebook or who have left are ashamed publicly for what they've done. They don't like the machine that they helped build and they're embarrassed and in Silicon Valley there's a lot of like anti-Facebook going around for people who were recruited in who, by the way, made tons of money, millionaires. They don't like what they did and when they go out in the real world and go, oh my God, you worked at Facebook and they get shamed by the crowd. So there's a lot of that going on. So Zuckerberg did it, Google did it, Facebook did it. They say, we should be regulated. By who, the Congress? These people asking these questions, they couldn't regulate their way out of a wet paper bag. This is a problem. This is a problem. These are people who asked Zuckerberg how he makes money if he gives it away for free. Remember? Exactly. I mean, come on. The tech people, it's all optics, Dave. Silicon Valley, it's all optics so they can say, look, we offered it up. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court rules in favor of Google on section 230, which is from the 90s. So you got lawmakers approving and the Supreme Court validating 90s law on tech. And you talk about dial-up and browsers, they weren't even built yet. So that's like regulating AI now. Imagine regulating the internet, the web, in 1996, okay? Possible. Microsoft didn't even have a browser built yet. They did that in 97, okay? Netscape was the number one browser. Imagine if the government said, whoa, this internet thing, it's going to kill direct mail and people's ability to go to events. I don't know. And then that would be brutal. Imagine that they did that. Did you see Home Depot had soft earnings this week and they blamed part of it on shrinkage where people organized crime is like stealing and shoplifting and they're losing a lot of money, like a half a billion dollars a year, something huge number, maybe even a quarter. And then what they're doing is they'll like steal a bunch of stuff and then they'll put it online to an online retailer reseller like Amazon. So the question is a good one, is should an Amazon or other online retailers be responsible for sellers that are selling hot goods on their platform? No, not at all. Home Depot should have better self-service check. You know, easiest to steal from Home Depot? Yeah, but there's new laws that say, okay, we're not going to prosecute people unless it was more than $10,000. So people are going in and they're still doing petty theft and people are getting shot trying to stop people. And then people are organized crime is breaking in at night to these jewelry stores and these other high-end retailers. And it's a serious problem. But, and then they go on to- I don't think Amazon should be punished for, if I go in and steal stuff from Home Depot or a jewelry store and they can prove that that's their goods and I'm pushing it on Amazon, I should be the one that's arrested. Yeah, but should Amazon have no responsibility for reselling those products, those stolen products? I don't think they should. Should they not have some kind of value? They should have first principles, obviously. I mean, look, Andy Chaston asked this question. Wait, wait, wait, what if they, what if they say, was he, I didn't hear it, but what if they're selling like way under, they're consistently undercutting the average price on Amazon. And there's these, some small little seller who doesn't have the volume of like a CVS or a Walmart and they're undercutting them. I mean, that's good competition away, but isn't that like a signal that there may be hot goods and they maybe should be investigated? You're saying Amazon should have no responsibility for that? Well, you're making a lot of assumptions there, but I mean, I don't know what to say for those assumptions that have no, that don't hold me well. Okay, I'll give you an example. So I buy toothpaste. I use like Arm and Hammer toothpaste and it's way overpriced. And I go into CVS and I buy it. It's like 10 bucks a tube or something stupid. Well, one day I'm searching. I got a nice white teeth. Thanks, John. One day I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm searching. No, it should be though. One day I'm searching on Amazon and I see the toothpaste is like half the price. I'm like, wow, CVS is ripping me off. So I order a bunch of toothpaste. It comes in these like, it was clearly stolen. I mean, the, the boxes are all ripped up and you know, they're all bent to cut, half of them are ripped open. It was like, it was like, it was like, it was like the Sopranos sold it, you know, stole it and put it out there. But so I mean, I bet you, but, but shouldn't the retailer be these big retailers? Shouldn't they have some responsibility for that? No, you're saying, Jassy was asked about this. I didn't know that. No, no, no. He asked about when it kind of the books and certain kind of like books and people, like offensive books. Because you know, it was a thing about the Jewish books that were on anti-Semitic books that were on Amazon. But he was a similar issue. Why don't you start banning things for this kind of issue then? That's different. That's, that's free speech. Well, I know, but people want it gone. Well, that's different. That's different than, than stolen goods. Some people view, hey, fucking stolen goods coming to me. I don't care. But look, if you have toothpastes come in and you don't like the packaging or you think it's not legit, you're pissed at Amazon for that. That's Amazon's issue. They should manage that on their end as customer satisfaction. And if they let stuff on their network go through this, so their people are sliding in. I'm sure Amazon has a policy. I was running Amazon. I'm sure Jassy would be the same way. They want the best consumer experience. Faster, lower costs, it's not legit product. You complain. And then, or they figure out a way to stop counterfeiting or stolen goods. But I don't think they should be held legally liable for that. I don't think it's their, their obligation to spot check every transaction. Well, but should they do anything about it? Should they use their, should they use their, I'm sure Andy Jassy and Amazon doesn't want stolen goods to be sold on their network. They're honest people. But should they, should they do more to try to police that? First of all, I don't know what they're doing. They have to because otherwise they'll lose customers. That's, that's, that's what the way I would look at. I mean, look at it. If, if there is illegal or stolen goods on trafficking through the system, that's not good for business. Okay, cause there's a lot of potential issues there. Tamporing. Tamporing. It's like a black market. It's like a black market. Well, you got toothpaste coming. How do you know there's no fentanyl in there? It's like poisoned. Yeah, good point. But I mean, it's like a black market on Amazon. I, I absolutely. Are you buying toothpaste from Amazon after that experience? No, I stopped. There it is. I'm paying up and going to CVS, you're right. I mean, you're making a good point there. But I bet you other people keep buying, you know, TVs, watches, counterfeit watches. I mean, I'm sure all that stuff. I think, I think this is where it back to the age circle back to AI where you got tangent here. I think technology will help solve these problems again. This comes up all the time when we get on the weeds on the enterprise section alone, how data and more data comes in AI helps manage where humans can't do everything. And so I think you'll see areas. So just, just for the folks out there, there's a Twitter person, Akash Gupta, A-A-K-A-S-H-G-Zero's is Twitter handle. Two A's, Kosh G-Zero. He wrote a post that I retweeted. In the last four days, here's what's happened. GS Robots, MedPalm2, which is Google's medical thing, Google X Adobe, Tesla Optimus AI, new ChatGPT UI, Unreal Engine 520, Amazon Burnham, Amazon AI Search, Sam Altman in DC, Apple Voice Cloning, Alzheimer's Detection, Open AI, Open-Sourced, their LLM, okay? This is like just in the past four days. The robots, the cyber arms, like you mentioned, Lawson Space, similar, that's like robotic extensions. The MedPalm2 is basically Google's thing that's outperforming doctors, okay? This is a medical thing, right? So it's a version of their palm model tuned for medical use cases like reading X-rays and all that stuff. Yeah, making better diagnoses. And there's a great, and he links to a paper. I mean, it's just, I mean, it's just off the charts and just how it's building on top of GPT-30, I mean 3.5, and just incredible. Google X Adobe announced a geospatial creator in Aero. Google IO had the geospatial creator Unity. Just more content, Tesla, robotics. You mentioned that later. They're in a position to do well there in the new UI. It's just, Dave, that's four days, okay? So this is why I'm getting into this section that I want to bring up our historical perspectives. There's a couple of conversations going on around open versus proprietary, okay? Big player, small player. So we'll start with the big player, small player. And so the debate is, are we in a revolution with AI or an evolution? So, you know, you and I both agree, the PC was a revolutionary moment. You mentioned the web. Yeah, well, what was the web? It was revolutionary, but a lot of the incumbents took advantage of the web. Like, take Dell computers back then. So they were doing like mail order and stuff, and then the web came. They weren't an internet player, but they took amazing advantage of the internet. I mean, their stock boomed in the 90s when the internet was just getting started and they were doing direct sales over the internet. So that was an example of an incumbent. And I think the answer to your question is yes and yes. I definitely think there's going to be disruption. I think there's no question this is going to be a huge new way. You mean AI, you mean AI, you mean AI? AI, yes, yes, absolutely. So we're talking about three things. PC, internet web, and AI. And then AI. And I think AI is going to be bigger than all of them. I agree with that. Who ever made, who was making that assertion, I think you are too. I think that was the first thing you said. But as well, I think the incumbents can really take advantage of this. In other words, any industry. And so I think the ones that are going to be left behind are the ones that don't lean into it and try to figure out how they can get a unique competitive advantage. But I also think, like Sam Altman was asked, like, how are you going to make money? He says, I kind of like the subscription. They asked him, are you going to do ads? He goes, I kind of like the subscription model. I think they haven't figured it out yet, but somebody's going to come up with a brand new model. You remember, you were there in the early days of keyword search, right? And advertising, and people thought that was a really dumb idea at the time. Well, I'm sure there's ideas that are going to occur that people really have business models that people haven't thought of, you know, like to think iTunes and how that changed things and changed the whole music industry. And I think something else is going to emerge here to your point that's going to be disruptive. So I think it's going to be both. I think this is a great discussion because the big players, Intel was not a big player in 1996. Okay, so they were still a PC revolutionary, right? So that was good, right? So they leaned into it. They were small, still disruptive. But I think the key point here is that... Stay Intel? 96, no. Intel was, they were forming their monopoly. Tell, tell. I'm talking about Michael Dell. Oh, Dell, sorry, sorry. They just were launching direct sales and they were mail order. Yeah, they were mail order. So they were mail order, PC magazine ads. I mean, we rip with Michael all the time about this. He's my age. So, you know, he actually tried to hire me once. I said no to him. I was like, why do I want to work for a piece of crap mail order company? Of course I was working at HP at the time. At that, and then he pivoted. He just reinvested and went from mail order with the internet, which allowed him and Webb to do self-service ordering. Then he did great manufacturing where you had everything close to each other, you know, and how they manufactured and they had built order. Built order was absolutely the most innovative thing that Michael Dell's team did besides realizing they can reduce the channel with direct mail. Direct response with the web, absolutely put them in orbit and that's the history behind Dell. And I didn't see that. That's why I didn't go to join them and been like the 18th employee for Dell. Bad call, John. I made a lot of bad calls, Dave. So that's why I went so good at the keyboard. That was car tissue we learned. That's don't do that. I could have gone to work for Microsoft in Seattle in 1988. That was a bad call. And Dell tried to hire me in 87. But I went to HP in Eulah Packard, IBM and then Eulah Packard in 1988. And that was a great run. 1988, Eulah Packard was eight billion in sales and that went to 36 billion when I left in 97 to do the search startup. And I just literally quit the big corporate job at HP to do something that no one thought was like, what the hell, why would anyone buy a keyword for search engines, paid keywords? Ridiculous idea, which ended up being the billions of dollars that it is now. That time of HP was really strong, but HP and the these guys survived. Now the question here is, who captures the value on these inflection points? And my thesis is always been when you have disruption like this, revolutionary disruption, you have big winners that have never been seen before. New players emerge. And the point you made about the web earlier, the market looks nascent and incomplete to everyone else. And at the startups and the entrepreneurs who have opportunity recognition, see it, can connect the dots, move fast, capture a position, innovate and make it better. And I think, and that's when they, when it goes mainstream, they capture the value wealth capture and they capture the market value. The question is, in this wave, is Google, Amazon, Meta, are they going to capture the value? Or is it going to be split between startups and the big guys? Because remember, the big incumbents, some of them have to die, otherwise it's not a revolution. That's an evolution. So this is an interesting conversation and there's a lot of new things in play, open source, software is booming, you have open software that's free. You have high accelerated cycle times for product development. I just interviewed a company today called Virtual Layer, that's just visual layer, that's got $7 million in funding. I interviewed Danny Bixen, who I met in 2014. He got funded by Madrona and Insight. These smart Israelis, they're killing it right now. They just, they nailed the data problem. They got their project started in open source, Dave. Now they got $7 million in seed funding. So- So he's like, this is a revolution, of course. I love the attitude of the startup there and the startup side. What do you think? Because this is, and I think it's going to be both for the first time, in a major way. I mean, I wouldn't call Dell in the web days like the big play, but they rode that wave. So to your point, is there a Ken Olson digital equipment corporation out there that's going to topple? So to come back to the internet, so in the 90s, when, between, let's call it, 96 and 2000, when stock market was going crazy, it was CMGI who didn't make anything that just invested in companies. Internet capital group, AOL was the hot stock. Remember AOL, how hot it was? Remember they ended up acquiring Time Warner? And then, other way around, actually. And then Cisco, who made money during the gold rush, they would say, the people who sold picks and axes. Yahoo, EMC, these companies were on fire during the late 90s. And who ended up winning in the internet? Now Amazon was there as well. So who ended up making it? So who made it, really made it through? Amazon for sure, eBay did okay, obviously, but Google was the big winner, right? To your point. Well, on what? I'm not saying Amazon didn't win. The web? No, Amazon did win with the internet. Yeah, yeah, but AOL didn't. You could argue Cisco, EMC, certainly Yahoo didn't. You could argue Cisco and EMC were sort of overhyped in the, they say things are overhyped at the beginning and underhyped when it really takes off. I would say Cisco, EMC, Yahoo, AOL, they were overhyped. Now Cisco and EMC, now Dell did pretty well, but they weren't the dominant players. The market got that wrong. What did the internet kill? Question to you, what did the internet kill? If PC killed the mini computer and mainframe, what did, from a computing standpoint, productivity, we'll get into that later, what did the internet kill? Telecommunications? Media. John Chambers was on theCUBE, episode six. It killed media, it killed print media. Yeah, a lot of people that were old school, phone call. Killed this, killed this, right? Change that. Yeah, Wall Street Trends was one of the first websites. They had one of the best apps, one of the best websites, yeah, I remember that. So the incumbents who lasted, they were able to take advantage of it. Like we were using the Dell example, Google came out, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Microsoft kind of missed it. Remember, Microsoft was all about trying to compete in the web browser, and they went sideways until Satya came in, so it was, you know, it really killed, to my point, it killed industries, right? And I think the same could potentially happen with AI. So I got a call, I got a call called out on this, my rant on this from some younger generations, people in their 30s, late 30s, we were chatting at an event. They said, hey, but what about the iPhone though? That's sort of an inflection point. Like, well, I didn't consider that revolutionary in the sense of it was already part of web, web2, apps, and Apple, right? So the iPhone, I would say, was a physical, I mean, it's close, I mean, I'm not going to poo poo that. Like the recognition of the iPhone in 2007 was a moment that was interesting. But I still think AI will be bigger than that. I think you'd look at cloud, Amazon web services, is that an inflection point? I don't think it's biggest AI. I think even the monster shift that Apple, iPhone, which killed Nokia and killed a lot of things, all the blackberries, well-documented, changed the app game, created SaaS, Apple, iPhone, and cloud, in my opinion, close. But still an extension of the web and web2.0, that moment in time was, I think, that's where the internet killed existing people. And then John Chambers then came on theCUBE, which by the way, he was an extension of the PC industry, as you said, connecting PCs, that connected companies like Cisco was created from that generation. Then they powered the internet, obviously. He said on theCUBE, he predicted voice would be dead, and his customers were all telecom companies. And what do we do today? No one thinks about their phone bill. WhatsApp's free. So I think, you know, things get killed, but you got to put it in the right bucket. And that's why I'm not saying iPhone and cloud of AWS was not a revolution. That was an evolution, but a good one, big one. Well, what I would say is that as the internet matured and become more reliable, remember, Bob Metcalf used to say it's going to crash, and he had some insight to that. But companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, they were able to leverage that more reliable infrastructure to basically disrupt print media, advertising, retail, music, telecoms, I mean, virtually every industry. You remember the old Nicholas Negroponte, you know, Adams versus physical brick and mortar, right? That was in the thinking was, okay, the businesses around, you know, Adams are going to be really disrupted, but they were all disrupted. I mean, you know, everybody was impacted. I think the same thing's going to happen here at times maybe 10 or 100. And I think your point about who wins and who leans into it, Michael Delcombe was great. I was a colleague with the CTO of Next Computer, which was bought by Apple, and this person was Steve Jobs' right-hand man on all things software, not hardware on the software side. And he and I would travel together when we worked together, and he would tell me, I would ask him a question about Steve Jobs, and the iPod, which then became the iPhone, came out of that, all that obsession with Apple was about Steve Jobs had Sony envy. He hated Sony because they had great products. Their PCs at that time were great. They had the Walkman, and even in the movies, they show him with the Walkman on. He hated the Walkman. He hated the fact that Sony was better than him, and he really wanted to make a better product than Sony. So his obsession with killing the Walkman created the iPod. That comes out of the PC. You know, you mentioned Michael Del. He saw the web as the new direct mail, and said, hey, which got killed, direct mail. You don't have, you don't get, you get direct mail now, but back then, that's all you could do. You had to send invites to a seminar. You'd send out a mailer, and you go to a hotel, and you have a presentation. There was no webinars, there was no chat rooms. So Michael Del leaned into that. So you have Jobs leads in, leads from the PC, all the way through to the iPod. So he got the web, created the Apple Store, and it's, again, the entrepreneurs will ultimately capture the value. That's my thesis, and I think AI is going to create more entrepreneurial energy and wealth creation than anything prior to the internet and PC. I think PC, internet, internet web, and AI will be the three most compelling society-changing inflection points, wealth creation, productivity, I mean, overall impact easily. And again, and even compared to the iPhone, which is we all know was met, was huge, was just an extension of jobs to the iPod, to the iPhone. Now, I'm oversimplifying it, but now AI is completely brand new. Some kids can come out of college. That's why I want to be 25 again, because I would be totally doing an AI startup right now if I was in my 20s. I mean, absolutely. Computer science degree, knowledge in the industry, problems to solve everywhere, making things better. It's just, this is going to be right. Now, the question is going to be, do people leave Amazon web services to go do a startup? Do they leave Apple to do a startup? Do they leave IBM to do a startup? It's going to be very interesting, Dave. And I tell you right now, I'm on the disruption revolution side. So with wealth creation comes wealth destruction. They often go hand in hand. It's not necessarily a zero sum game, but we're at the point now where you pointed out earlier, where machines in many cases are making better diagnoses than doctors. So healthcare is going to get disrupted. What about driving? What about fully autonomous? I mean, I've kind of been a skeptic, but how was that going to affect logistics, ride sharing, taxis, everything, trucking? How about retail stores? Can AI, why do you go to retail stores? That is fun to shop, but hey, sometimes you don't want to have to find a parking space at the mall. What if I can actually try on clothes with AI and VR headsets and actually see how it looks and order it and have it perfectly tailored for me? I mean, that's a highly disruptive potential. I think these use cases are going to be really interesting. And we talk about on theCUBE all the time, what are the use cases that are going to be changed and what are the bets that are being made by the investors? And I'll see who are the horses on the track, AKA the startups and companies. If you look at, I saw Walt Mossberger, famous columnist for the Wall Street Journal, did, started All Things D and then recode with Kara Swisher. He was, had a little rant. He's like, you know, Apple stores, Apple stores are sucks now. It's so much, I had to wait 45 minutes. I couldn't get a genius bar appointment. He was kind of ranting on the Apple store, saying they were once the gold standard, now that's a pain in the ass. And so, okay, how does AI change that? Well, maybe prepare knowing what my machine's doing, having some IoT devices in there or doing something at Home Depot, your example of theft. Hey, put cameras everywhere, you know. Track who's stealing it? I mean, so there's all kinds of ways. And again, I think there's going to be a lot of positive change. But again, we will see a plane in the Hudson moment, AKA to the Twitter example, something with AI. It's going to be all great until something happens. Well, and, you know, we've talked about this before, but I think Amazon could really get disrupted if AI can allow you to directly order from a manufacturer, got out the middleman and direct, you know, dropship right from the factory. You know, that's, you know, really interesting. Now, now maybe Amazon does some of that, but they have the huge, you know, warehouse infrastructure. And then you talk about the AI moment, you know, Musk said, we're going to have our chat GPT moment when all of a sudden, you know, hundreds of thousands of cars have fully autonomous driving with a software download. Now, I've been kind of promising that for a while, but think about that. If in fact, he can succeed at that, and it's true that he's got the best AI. I know you want to talk about this. Wow, that's going to totally disrupt the automobile industry. I mean, I think he has to have good AI and he can't. I mean, his operations require non-disruptive. They can't hallucinate. I mean, you can't, you're seeing Tesla's cases where cars have crashed. I mean, I have, I have, I don't have a Tesla, but I got a car that has those lane things. And sometimes when we do construction, they kind of paint over the marks. It gets confused and that can, the car's heavy, so it pulls. I can see someone maybe hold on the wheel and maybe get jacked in the next lane. Yeah, totally. You know, let me, I've kind of been a skeptic on fully autonomous driving. And because I asked this question, why is it that we don't let people drive until they're 16 years old? Is it, I mean, why not 12 or 13 or 14? And I think it's because there's an organic learning that takes place. And these are not learning systems. I mean, even, I don't know, I, who said I was, might've been Sam Altman or somebody said, you know, they're not, they're not self-teaching at this point in time. They get better, they improve with training, but they're not learning systems. And the human brain is a learning system. And it takes 16 years for us to get mature enough to actually, you know, be trusted to drive. You know, why is that now? Will machines be able to compress that time and actually replicate that? Maybe. I don't know. I mean, it's very hard to predict the things that machines could do that the people could do rather that machines couldn't do their chain. They're, they're, they're changing so rapidly. Your robots couldn't climb stairs five, seven years ago. Right? That's a simple example. Well, now there's going to be a lot of use cases where the robots will help us. I mean, it all, it all comes down to two, two questions. One is, do you regulate it or, and how does that look like? And two, you know, what's going to be the impact productivity and order society regulation? I'm against the Google announcement winning the course case with section 230. Your question about this Amazon and Home Depot, the liability note here, there's a tech dirt article where details, I pulled this up since you brought it up. Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice, said, he laid out the reasons why he thinks 230 is a good thing, why we should still keep it. I'll read it to you, I'll get your reaction. He says, section 230, which is the 1998 telecommunication act for platforms, exists to avoid applying secondary liability to third parties who aren't actively engaged in knowingly trying to help someone else violate the law. So interesting little tidbit there. So now we always kind of put the blank of thing there, like platforms abusing section 230, true. But that's a pretty cogent point, what he's saying. Your point is, if Amazon's actively knowingly helping someone push stolen goods, then- So the difference is, it's putting the onus on somebody to prove that Amazon is doing that, versus putting the onus on Amazon to actually police it. Different things, right? So if you gotta prove that Amazon, they're gonna have to find emails that said, hey, we know people are, it's like the finance thing. We know people are breaking the rules, but let's look the other way. And I mean, I could go either way on that honestly, John, I can see Thomas's point, and I'm- Well, he goes further, and that's the your point. Thomas also recognizes that if you make the secondary liability too broad, it sweeps in all sorts of innocent bystanders, which is your point, which is like, okay, it's kind of broad. And we can say we're a platform, right, and not get sued, right? Or, you know, we're not a platform, and we're a publisher. So I think this is an interesting topic. We're gonna keep following it. So one is no regulation with AI. I think regulating AI right now would be the equivalent. Again, I'll say it again. Regulating AI right now would be the equivalent of regulating the web in 1997, 98. Okay, imagine the handcuffs and the anchor drag on that growth. That would just be like, you know, horrible innovation. AI is going to be regulated. I'll tell you where. It's gonna be regulated in the EU. Guarantee the EU is gonna come up like they did with GDPR. They're gonna come up with some, except it's gonna be harder even. They're gonna come up with some framework and some guardrails that, you know, probably won't get tested in court for a long, long time, but they're gonna do it. And then, you know, who else is gonna regulate AI is China. And because China doesn't debate in Congress, they don't have the public debates. And well, should we, shouldn't we? Yeah, they are kind of regulating AI for... Yes, and so China will just... For their advantage and also to suppress freedom. Exactly, they will make a decision. And then those two regulating authorities are going to be Petri dishes or how these regulations work. And I think my prediction is the US is gonna, well, what do we do? We're gonna stare at our naval for a long time because they don't have any idea how to approach this. And it's gonna be wild west. They're gonna be unintended consequences. And then either what's gonna happen like it's happening with TikTok, states are gonna take it into their own hands, which would really suck because then you've got to do, you know, 50 different rules. Or the federal government is gonna actually step up and help figure this out. But I think the best bet is that the industry steps up and it provides its own guardrails. That the industry has to leave. Guardrails, that's the code word for the dog whistle for. Don't regulate us. We'll call it guardrails. But what the hell does that mean? I think. I mean, this is what I'm seeing all around. Everyone who's an expert in AI right now, you've got a venture fund or leading the charge is waving the woke flag of, or the flag of, oh, we should regulate it. And we've got guardrails down. That's code words for leave us alone. Well, yeah, maybe, but I think the, when I say guardrails, I'm talking about, I'm talking about transparency. So how did that, how'd you get that answer? Where did that come from? What are the sources? Sight your, you know, you cite your sources, you know, expose the black box. Well, I think that's what I mean by guardrails. Is open AI being transparent by open sourcing their LLM? Not chat GPT, large language model, open AI. They just open source. I would say the open source LLM. Open source is the guardrail, that's my point. Open source is the guardrail. Yes, is more likely to be transparent, of course, than chat GPT is open source the guardrail. Yeah, I guess. Look at what's done with security. I mean, open source is, if open source done right, which has now generations of open source players and if you look at it again, how it's just that open source summit in Vancouver with all the top people go, that there are, you know, our age. You know, I was in college, we stole software, it was no free software. Now you have free software, you don't have to code it. It's all out there, it's usable and permissive license, it's awesome. But one of the benefits of open source is transparency. You can see the code, you can download it, use it, build derivative works, work license, yeah, so that's all there. And then you can make it, it could be this risk of software supply chain, of course, but it's free. You can look at the code. So, if AI could be more open source, it by default has transparency. That's our argument about security. Is Amazon Web Services more secure than on premise? Is open source more secure than proprietary code? You see the scale of the transparency. So my point is, if open source has ball control of the industry, they will default by their behavior in their operating model, be more transparent. The question is, can they handle the growth that will come from that? Right, that's the, because it's Wild West, I could make a case that, people might trust IBM to be the steward more than just open source. You know, I'm just making up things. It could be fast and loose. But again, back to the guardrails. What does that mean? And again, I'm telling you right now in Silicon Valley and all around the world where the people who are doing the work, funding, they're not going to go against the current trend of we need to be regulated. That is like just optics. In my opinion, that's complete optics to saying that they hear you, don't be worried, don't be afraid, AI's not going to hurt you. Guardrails is code word for leave us alone. So I think this whole regulation thing is just posturing. I do think, when I say guardrails, I think again, it comes down to transparency. What's the data source? Like how are you getting this answer? Where is it coming from? Because at one point I was chat ego GPT'ing and you'll love this. I actually started the cube with Jason Calcanis according to one, there was chat GPT. I was like, what? No, I had to tell it. Oh, sorry. It was John Furrier. Whereas, you know, a month ago, you and I started the cube. Well, I actually been testing not only chat GPT and bar, but go to Bing. Bing search is integrating search query. So they have a different kind of thing. So I asked, do you like Bing? Do you like Bing? Bing came up with a great response about the Silicon angle in the cube. Actually had metrics around traffic, leading site and enterprise. But then you go to search Silicon angle and like to generate what enterprise news we're not even listed. But yet chat GPT, Bing says, we're the leading enterprise publication with the cube. It actually figured out what most people don't know is that Silicon angle in the cube or one 10th thing. So Bing search with AI figured that out, but the search results generically don't. That's fascinating. And that's why I think Microsoft smart to know that this could be a Google killer. They won't say it publicly. They kind of say, oh yeah, we're going to nip away at their market share. And that's why Google called the code red when Microsoft had that press event. That's why Amazon launched with the hugging face, their generative AI push. That's why Kramer had to walk back as comments on Amazon not having AI just yesterday. So it's all like, this is what's happening. The big guys have AI. They have massive, they have the chops and they have the chops and they got the code, right? They got the people and the code. So I mean, I got to tell you what's the incentive. If you see disruption, some of the big players has to topple. If it's truly revolutionary, something has to get killed. Something dies in the industry. That's the question. Now it might not be obvious that direct mail was a function. It could be a process. It could be a company. It could be a method. And I think that's what I'm looking at right now from a startup standpoint. Does that, is that a feature or is that a category? Is that a company? If you're a feature, you can get in the market with that feature and then pivot to a category. So, and that's what happened with the web. You know, I had the small little feature, paid search, you work with Microsoft and Netscape, Google gets involved. You know, that was my angle. So that's going to be very interesting to see how fast this happens. Now, unlike those other waves, time to market is so much faster. Even that startup we talked about today, their engineers are using co-pilot and chat GPT. Okay, so again. Productivity is off the charts. I mean, you can get into $7 million in seed funding and be with a MVP product market fit in months. Maybe even weeks. Well, like I said, I mean, the results really vary and they vary over time. So I've said a number of times, I love Bard because it had theCUBE and Silicon Angles, the number one live TV program for enterprise tech, no longer. It now says CNBC is ahead of theCUBE. And I'm like, how can you say that? Well, it's got bigger reach. I'm like, okay, but, you know, a month ago, not even a week ago, theCUBE was number one. Now CNBC is number one. I like to be compared to CNBC. I mean, that's, that's a positive. We definitely go deeper than CNBC, although they're doing now eight minute segments and they just saw a great segment that they were with the hugging face CEO who we interviewed as well. But we interviewed him weeks before. I mean, we get, see the thing about us and CNBC is we get the stories before they do, right? So, and because we have more deeper access in the industries, we have, we see the signals. I mean, the Wall Street Journal, same thing. We joke about it. It depends on the story. It depends on something. They get earnings, you know, stories before we do. Of course, we're not covering earnings. But if we did, we would have data that would screw up the earnings quiet period. I mean, that must, another area is going to get ranted. My rant is quiet periods will probably go away because everything's online. The, but even Wall Street Journal, that article that was out today, exclusive story. People aren't going to use chat CPT for confidential as a confidential. I wrote about that and we, I broke that at KubeCon in Amsterdam. So this new cycle on mainstream media is literally lagging the market by three to four weeks on the fast side. At least, yeah. If not months. We had super cloud conversations in 2021. Now the mainstream conversation is multi-cloud. Okay. Again, this is the difference of this new world. And you're going to see accelerated data. And this is why, you know, this is going to be a data tsunami that's going to be different than the big data wave in 2010, bigger than the data infrastructure buildout we saw with Databricks and Snowflake. I think AI is going to address a core problem area in the enterprise that's going to be significant, which is the data infrastructure is getting so good right now in terms of managing. You got Snowflake event coming up. You're going to cover them. You got Databricks and all the, you got at scale. You got all kinds of infrastructure, handling data, horizontal and vertical. Now more data is coming in. The problem isn't the data. It's the data to manage the data. Is that good quality data? Data cleaning, data. These are like boring intern tasks. No one wants to do data cleansing, but it's now the most important with AI, clean data as a training tool is the most important task and it's hard. So it's going to be done by machines. I think AI will do data cleaning. The worlds, yes. The worlds of business intelligence and, you know, dashboarding and reporting in AI are coming together, right? Because if you think about it, you know, think about what my son Roman does. He's a data analyst, right? He writes Python code and SQL queries to pull data and then builds Tableau dashboards and serves up the line of business, right? That's, he is, and people like him, these data analysts, they are essentially the semantic layer taking all these different data points, working with data engineers, data scientists, quality engineers, making sure those data elements are coherent and then presenting them. So that team, that data pipeline team, they are the semantic layer AI combined with technologies from companies that do, you know, semantic technologies. That's going to become the new semantic layer and essentially completely change the, what we've known is the data pipeline, my view. Yeah, and then you're pointing about the prompt, prompts into Bart, that's a query. If data is not clean going in, you're going to have garbage in, garbage out. And if, by the way, if the language model isn't ready for it. So it's the data sets interacting with each other where the, I think AI will help do the, having clean data is like having a good prompt, right? So anyway, that's in the weeds on the enterprise, but Dave, we're going to get to the rant section because, you know, almost out of time, we've got 10 minutes left. I guess my rant is two-fold. Elon Musk is in the news in his laptop comment about laptop glass. He also had an interview with the CNBC guy about the, with the Tesla earnings. That's my one rant. We'll get into that. And the other rant is this AI hype is off the rails in the sense of the conversation about regulation is ridiculous. The posturing of, we need guardrails. It's just optics. The industry needs to let this thing run. It needs to saute. It needs to get going. There's too much opportunities to do good things. And everyone's focusing on the bad things. And I think, you know, we have to keep an eye on it and hope nothing bad happens. That's, that's obvious. Yeah, we'll watch it, but I think you don't want to regulate it. So I'm against the regulation and even offering that up as an option is just ridiculous. I thought Sam Altman was all wet on that. Other than that, he looked great in the Congress hearings. I think everyone should stop messaging this, you know, virtue signaling of, we need guardrails, you know, be careful. We're going to take, you know, pragmatic view. Just let it go. Fund the entrepreneurs. Get the open source cranked up and see what happens. I think that's what's happening. Open source is getting cranked up. And everyone that I know that's entrepreneurial is jumping in. And, and we'll see how fast these guys can keep the talent and the big players. I think the big players will have to adjust. Some will ride it, but the actor's going to be a revolution. Well, talk about the laptop class, the Musk statements. I mean, I am by what he said. I mean, he said something to the effect of this laptop class is delusional. People have to come back into the office. I don't believe that. I mean, I think here's what I believe that people who are within, I don't know, let's say an hour of the office, they should come in. I would say they should come in two, three times a week. I think it's incumbent upon companies to do things, to entice them to come in like, you know, Taco Tuesday, or you get free health club membership if you come to the office, you know, things like that. You know, but, you know, have a little carrot, but I also think that people that are in the office more, you know, interacting with the executives and their peers, I think they're going to have better upward mobility. Having said that, I've known years for years, salespeople never in the office, they're outselling and extremely productive. They're some of the most valuable people in the organization. So I think I didn't buy that as a blanket statement. Everybody has to return to the office and the pejorative of calling people the laptop class. They're living in La La Land. And he said, quote, the headline is laptop class needs to get off their moral high horse when it comes to remote work. They're living in La La Land. Here's what I think. He's actually trolling. He's been troll master for a while here. I like what he's doing with Twitter and I like how the product's getting better. Now you can put podcasts up there. Jason Kelkannis is documenting this because he's in with Musk in his text messages. He said to Musk when they reveal his text messages, I give you my sword. That was Jason Kelkannis's private text, Elon Musk, when they released those texts. So we know Jason's in that crew and you got also the all-in podcast guys, David Sacks, a little bit right wing. Elon- A little bit. Seems to be right wing. He's a lot of bit right wing. And so little trolling going on, little Donald Trump moves, which I'm not for. I think it should be more leadership oriented. But let's face it, developers are virtual. So the remote work to me is all about productivity. If people can work remotely, like developers have been working remotely for years, sales people that work remotely, they want to close business. It's all about what the job is. I do think office work, this is where I believe Andy Jassy had it right when he was on theCUBE in 2020, 2021, talking about the impact of the pandemic. There are just certain jobs that have better outcomes when people are in the office. Collaboration jobs, brainstorming, riffing on whiteboards. Even here, I was just chatting with Gabe, we're talking about the site and our site. When people riff, it's a sign of iteration and innovation is messy. It requires people to bang up against each other, debate, argue and align. And sometimes that's very positive face to face and this becomes kind of lame when you're on Zooms and team meetings. So I think there is an element to that. I totally agree on that piece, but to say it's a generational thing is a troll. Now, if people claim that I need to work at home, that's the way my work is. I think that's a high horse, but I don't think that's happening. I mean, I don't see people like demanding that they work at home. If they have flexibility to work at home, I think that's more of a convenience issue. Commute, you're a single parent, you're a parent, whatever it is, that should be there. I think that's cool. That's not a moral high horse. I think that's a requirement. So my rant on that is, is that he's trolling, but yeah, people should be in the office when there's work to be built together, building stuff in person works. I think the other thing is not really a rant, but I guess it is kind of picking up on that. I thought Musk's statements about the blue check mark were his strongest moments of that interview with the CNBC guy, because basically he said, a lot of people talk about high horse, like, I'm not signing up for the blue check. I earned my blue check and whatever. His point was, and I don't know if it's true or not, it could be revisionist history, but his point was the reason we implemented that is to protect against AI, because AI can spoof anybody. And so if you have to get a credit card, sign up and pay eight bucks a month, you can't buy a million bots. I mean, you could, but really ROI is not there. It basically decreased, I think he's right. He decreased the ROI for the bot spammers. I think that's a good call. And if it cleans up Twitter a little bit, I'm all for that. Now, is it a good revenue move? That's part of it. I don't know. Well, I think that he confused the hell out of, because first of all, the original blue check mark thing was a rigged game. That's why I brought up Jason Calcanus. He was very vocal about that. He wasn't on that list. I wasn't either. He and I should have been on that list in 2008, 2007, when they'd carries researchers on the list. Giga O'Malick was on the list, and they got millions of followers as a result. Millions of followers. That's incredible. It's an organization, right? That's a media company right there. That's a great newsletter. It's an audience. And so that was an unfair advantage. And Twitter managed that and used that to hand out favors. That's absolutely fact. And there's no one can debate that. That is just fact. Where he screwed up the current blue check marks, he wanted to make it about people. And it really is more about the bots. You're right about that. And it's not about the people, because you can buy a blue check mark and be anonymous and call your name, you know, not Dave Vellante. Make up a name. Last night, I jumped into a Twitter Spaces. I thought it was pretty cool. And I jumped in. There's 16, 25 people. I just checked it out. I was like walking into a private discord or something. And everybody on the stage and the audience had handles that weren't names. And the conversation was really rowdy. I got bounced out of that room in 30 seconds, literally removed from the room, because my name was on it. And someone probably looked at me, saw that I was probably older and had my name, went to my profile and I got instantly bounced out of the room. They wanted a private chat, basically. So okay, whatever. But they had no names. So it's like the chat rooms when you have an anonymous handle. That's where toxic shit happens. So to me, I'm for more of the real name, verification and a phone number like WhatsApp. I think that's better. Yeah, I think it's a positive. I agree. So Twitter, in some ways, I think a lot of ways is better now, right? I mean, you know, his whole thing about free speech, I think he's got some good points there. You added views under your tweets. See how many views you get? I thought that's clever. That's good optical signaling. Well, the other thing I like is you can actually, you can edit your tweets. If you have the blue check mark, you can write longer tweets. It compresses them like LinkedIn does. So there's some nice features there. It's not just about the vanity of the blue check mark. I really care about that. Well, I know people have verified. All right, Dave, we got to wrap this up. We got a huge Cube showcase coming up. First of all, our in-studio program is kicking ass. We're doing more staged, targeted virtual events that are really compelling, not just trying to replicate an in-person event, very targeted on a topic. I just lined up a great set of AI panels I'm going to do with Madrone Adventures and some other VCs. We're going to essentially do very focused experts on the Cube, the Cube alumni coming in panels. We have our physical events are back again. I mean, you're seeing massive numbers at KubeCon. More events. We got Dell Tech World Red Hat Summit. We got all kinds of events coming up. We got showcases, crowd strikes events on the roster, open source events, unbelievable. HPE discovers coming up. What do we got? What's done the schedule? Are you traveling? We're going to be traveling the whole month of June. We're doing road podcast. Yes. So we got Dell Tech World Red Hat Summit slash Ansible Fest next week. The following week is Memorial Day. The following week of that is Cisco Live. You and I will be there. After that is AWS Reinforce. Are you going to that? Yes. In Anaheim? Yeah, you got the Reinforce. I don't have a hotel. And then I'm going to fly up that week to Palo Alto. We're going to do some stuff in the studio and do some super cloud recordings because we got that going on. And then the week after that is Snowflake Summit and Databricks at Snowflake summits in Las Vegas. Databricks is in San Francisco and we got Mongo. Is that that week? No. I'll be at the Databricks event. You're going to be at Snowflake. And then Mongo's that same week too. Isn't it June 22nd? MongoDB is right after HPE Discover. Well, that's the final week. The last week is HPE Discover. So we end the spring at HPE. And like I said, Mongo, I think is the 22nd of June. Well, we got, I'll tell you right now, we got the July 18th SuperCloud 3. That's an event that's going to be about security and AI. That's booming. It's picking up great steam. We got great headline guests thanks to you securing all the top CEOs and the big security companies. In August, we got confirmed that we're going to be at VMware Explorer in Vegas, not Moscone. And the week after, Google Next. Yeah, Google Next is kicking ass, man. We're getting some great traction from Google. Google's doing great. They're investing. And then September, you know, we got, we got some openings, UI path there. October, AI is SuperCloud 4. We got CrowdStrike, doing CrowdStrike. And SuperCloud AI, SuperCloud 4 is AI. And these episodic super clouds are freaking awesome, Dave. I got to tell you, that's like, it's like a super podcast. You know, it's really episodic and it's topical. And then obviously we got, in November, we got Microsoft's event and we also got re-invent. Looks like re-invent is going to be back to the old cube where we're going to have, you know, one stage best guests, not the hundred interviews. So people watching should know that the cube is tapping out of doing hundreds of events, hundred of interviews, I mean, for, you know, for AWS. They're going to take that in-house. They're going to take it on air. And it's going to be a sponsored owned media thing. That's not the cube. The cube is independent and more higher end quality. The paid stuff is just like buying a lanyard. So you get it promoted. How about OG cube from the second re-invent that we did? Well, re-invent became so big it just became a cube sprawl. And so, you know, Amazon, we, you know, we looked at maybe doing more cubes. We want to stay focused. We want the swami on. We want Adam Sileski, Andy Jassy, Matt Wood, Peter DeSantis, James Hamilton. Mylan. Mylan, all the top people we want on there. And by the way, their industry business is growing and international is huge right now. So I was, you know, talking to VMware and all the cloud players, international cloud growth is coming and it's going to be look different than North America. Asia Pacific is a completely different marketplace as well, more smaller businesses. I think cloud is going to pick up a lot, Dave, in the international realm. So you'll see us in London hanging out there with our team in London. Just good stuff all around the cube. And of course, Silicon Angle continues to grow in traffic and relevance. I got to tell you, the audience growth is a million uniques a quarter now, rolling three months and growing. That's like big numbers and we push it everywhere. That's just on the site. There's audience in LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and all over these other outlets. So, you know, it's hard to put a tan on it but it's like five to 10 million, Dave. So let's keep cranking and get more videos on Silicon Angle. We're going to be doing a lot. You know, our pods are growing, breaking analysis is growing. We're up to, we're consistently close to or over or slightly under 10,000 downloads a week, which we're really proud of. I mean, that's- I mean, you should, you could literally charge 50K an episode for that product. That is like Gartner, McKinsey level analysis. It is good, I think. I mean, we got some good data in there. No, I'm serious, Dave. Have you thought about this? Because like I look at like Gartner and like IDC and these analyst firms, they take one of those breaking analysis. You do them every week, by the way, which by the way, I don't know how you do it. Your freaking brain is awesome. You take a breaking analysis every week. If they had that product, they would syndicate it and charge 50K. Yeah, probably. I mean, I don't know what they'd charge for it, but look, I enjoy doing it. I love, same as you, John, when we met, we said, let's put out, let's create more value than we extract. And so I think- Well, I suggest anyone watching, if you're in the business of the enterprise tech, you're interested in what's going on on Wall Street inside. I mean, you breaking so many scoops in those posts, like you give buyer information, you have our own internal, you have ETR data extracted, we have our data that we get from the cube kind of blended together. I mean, every Wall Street analyst I know is reading that. So the audience is super elite. I mean, I got someone called email me the other day and said, hey, can you verify this breaking analysis? Dave, of course I can, it's a Wall Street sell side. Okay? You get the buy side and the sell side all reading those posts. Because you know why? You bring in market share and you bring in the stuff that's going to lead into the earnings calls. I swear, I heard a question that came from your breaking analysis in the last Palo Alto Network's earnings call. I'll tell you what, I think some of these news outlets are reading it because I've noticed like the last year or so after we do a breaking analysis on a major trend, we saw this with the chips when we did all that analysis on Intel and ARM right after that. I mean, that's really when it started. Right after that, we saw all this coverage on some of the major news outlets, Bloomberg, CNBC. I was like, hmm, it must be reading my stuff. If I wanted to start a newsletter, enterprise newsletter, I would literally follow everything that we're writing and then what events we go to the cube and pick out two or three stories need to be the number one newsletter. All right, I'm hurting myself. That's what I'm talking about. Dave, this episode 12, if people want to give us feedback, we were looking for feedback, our expectation is that the first 20, we're going to get our groove and try to find the format. We want to bring in guests. We're going to figure out how to schedule that in with our travel. When we're traveling, we're going to do remote podcasts. Give us feedback. Tell us what you think. What do you want to hear more of, less of? And we want to grow this podcast. So again, we're going to get the mechanics down, but it's fun, Dave. I like shooting the breeze. It's almost like we're having a meeting, you know? Yeah, I love it, John. Bring in some guests. Okay, that's episode 12. Thanks for watching. And we'll see you next time.