 Hello, welcome to the Cube Pod episode 15. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. Dave, good to see you. I'm back in Palo Alto and Pod. Good to see you this week, bro. Great, it's been a couple of weeks there. Red Hat Summit. Now I'm back in Palo Alto after being in Vegas with Cisco Live, the Apple event this week. A lot going on and episode 15, we're getting the groove. Feedback coming in. They like the banter. They like the rant section. So we're going to do that every week. We get down the news. We're recovering. This podcast is just Dave and I riffing and sharing what we're looking at every week, what's on our mind, where we've been with the Cube and it's looking at Angle Media. And then what's our rant for the week where we kind of lay out and bitching a moment about things that are getting under our claw or things that we think is important that may or may not be in the Cube wheelhouse. Just so much going on this weekday. The Apple Vision was launched by Apple, WWDC, the developer conference from Apple. First real big thing since the iPhone in my opinion some will say Forbes had an article about Sequoia, the best VC firm on the planet in my opinion in terms of returns and investments splitting into three companies at a pressure of the scandals around China and India or the scandals in China and the opportunities in India I should say. And then the big crypto news is that Binance got down to hit with security law violations, coin bases under suit as well. And Elon Musk's Twitter sales were cut in half and hemorrhaging, they got the new CEO, we've covered that. And then another feature I'm watching that I like is Apple's I Watch has got a new OS, which I'm fascinated and I look to get your thoughts on what you use for any kind of device. And then a weird story out there that a psychologist, Rachel Cowart says that gaming's good for you. And I said that years ago when my kids were young, multiplayer gaming will be the future of work. Everyone's got a headset on like you right now and do that and there's a lot of other great stuff going on in the round here. So, and of course my rant this week will be about Mark Andreessen. So if you want to stay tuned for that, he's got the AI, not so much the software eating the world article, Dave but really more of a different kind of rant. Mark Andreessen's kind of lost it, I think. And we're going to get into that rant section and I'll have some data to share there. And then Oracle, Starlink, great lineup. Dave, Generve AI continues to rock in the enterprise. Generve AI continues to be the conversation. Will the large language models be the success? All of this on tap episode 15. Yeah, well, so, and Google made some announcements this week. You know, they got into what everybody thought was a panic and they were maybe, you know, people said they were in catch up mode but you know, to your point, Generve AI continues to be all the buzz. Although, you know, I think it was there at Cisco Live this week, but it wasn't, you know, front and center, definitely wasn't the lead, but it was there. But basically the, I think their strategy was sound. It's like, okay, we're going to infuse AI into everything which I think people have been saying for years. So they don't seem to have been radically changed their strategy as a result of open AI and panicking and saying, this is Cisco saying, oh, we got to do something here that's different. I think they're basically saying, hey, we've been doing this whereas I think Google, similarly, or somewhat differently said, we got to do something here. There's code red, but the reality is they were probably already ahead in many respects. So that's kind of an interesting dynamic. And now you see all this money flooding into the zone which is always fun to see. Well, I think that, I mean, first of all, Google has been ahead. So Google and Amazon on the AI definitely have been ahead. I mean, it's all about machine learning. A large language models came out, it's been around for a while too, by the way, people don't know that, but chat GPT caused everyone to see the ubiquity of it. Oh, it's magic. So I think that brought mainstream, mainstream computer user to the table. But all the insiders we know have been doing AI for a long time, Google's one of them. Google has so much AI. It's ridiculous how good they are. Now, the question is, can they hold on to their engineers or will they flee to join a hot startup? And can they get out of their own way to create good products? We'll see that at Google next in their event in San Francisco coming up in about a month or so. But they're doing some stuff. Google Cloud's making waves. I think there's going to be some announced with MongoDB coming up, got an event coming up there. You'll see Mongo. Multi-Cloud's going to actually help Google Cloud go from third place up a notch a few maybe. They got to deal with the Mayo Clinic this week for healthcare. They're bringing the logic and reasoning skills to chat bots and barred. You mentioned that. So you started to see better improvement there. And they released their secure AI framework to help companies protect their AI muscle and hacking. So, Google's got a treasure trove, Dave, of stuff. And I'm telling you right now, Google's its own enemy right now. They have so much potential. AWS, rightly so, I think it's got stronger management relative to kind of competing and executing than Google does. Hence they're on point. They pivoted, I won't say pivoted, bad word. AWS had the machine learning. They had SageMaker. They had all that AI kind of under the covers internal, but quickly moved and generate AI. And they have Bedrock, which is their product. And they have advantages. And people right now are afraid of their IP leaking. They're afraid of their data. Data will be the intellectual property of the future. And it is now seeing that. I think Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud and certainly Azure with open AI are going to move to make their environments secure and programmable and agile. So that's going to be the key. It's going to be a war, Dave. It's going to be who of the hyperscalers will be there. Now, Oracle came out with Starlink this week. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Before you go there, you were talking about those leaders and it's AWS, Google and Microsoft. Microsoft is there because of their relationship with open AI. Microsoft's in the last place in my opinion. But because of the business model that they have that they sort of cut the line. But so technically, I would agree with you. And then you got Databricks and Snowflake from a data platform perspective. They're making moves. And then you mentioned about will people, will engineers stay at Google? I wanted to ask you, it's kind of like just popped into my head when you said that, you know how the NFL take the quarterback out of the equation because if you don't have a good quarterback, you're in trouble. Just think about them in the Patriots. But I think about all the years as a Patriots fan watching Belichick get rid of like great players like Ty Law and Logan Mankins and Richard Seymour, you just let them go. And what do you do? We replace them. It's like, oh, pieces of meat. Just come on in. Is tech industry similar in that if enough talent stays in place and there's enough tribal knowledge and you bring in new talent, new younger talent, maybe that's undervalued or underpaid, they step up very quickly. Is there a similar dynamic in the tech industry where a company like Google can actually turn over and still be incredibly successful? Or is it sort of same old, same old dynamic in the industry where companies get more mature and they start to lose their luster? What do you think? That's a good question. First of all, I love the metaphor with NFL because we love talking sports, but not always exact, but close, right? So let's kind of break it down. So if you're a startup or you're a growing public company, let's say you're coming like Airbnb or Dropbox or box.net, box and then call box.net anymore, old name. You're different category than say a hyperscaler. So the New England Patriots, when they were in their prime, they're the Amazon web services. They had the best system. And if you're going to use that talent thing, in the NFL it only worked if the system works. So Belichick had a system where he had a lot of fungible capabilities you could move people around and he built a system around versatility of players. So in that system, you can get someone and cut a salary cap person or a high level person to another team and still not lose the system. A node gets replaced, but it's the balance of the system. That's the hyperscalers. They have that system. And so if you're a startup and you lose your core, like say one or two systems person or you're in trouble. You're in trouble. So it really comes down to what that looks like. Now I will, that being said, that's just kind of just general, architecture 101 systems thinking. However, with the cloud right now, a lot of the best talents in their 20s. If you look at like Lang chain, for instance, the guy Harrison, the young kid, you know, he's a kid, he's an adult, but like compared to us, he's what I wanted to be 25 years old, right? That's what I want to be right now, be 25 again. But so what I would be, so I think there's a crop of new talent that absolutely is what I call bomb throwers. They're the people who are throwing bombs at the old guys like us saying, get out of the way, I'm taking over. And so I think that's the thing that's going on in this industry right now. Can the hyperscalers maintain that position where the young disruptors are going to come up, the bomb throwers, I call them, the disruptors are going to take territory. It happens in every single inflection point. PC took a territory away from the old mini computers. The web took territory away from old business models. And then it goes on and on. And you're seeing it now with iPhone, killed the BlackBerry and Nokia, these are the number one phones in the world, right, before then. So right now that's the war. And that's why you see people like Sam Altman in Microsoft going to Washington saying, regulate, we should regulate. You know why? They don't want the startups to get any traction. Those guys don't want startups to win. They want them to slow down. They want to control them. They want to put them in the ecosystem, into a bucket like a cage and feed them and let them become the next meal for them. They need to subsume them. Amazon, quite frankly, is interesting. They might have an alternative approach. They might take the different approach to say, hey, we want to enable value. And Matt Garmin, who I interviewed, has access to, got an exclusive interview. I asked him directly. He wants to be open to all foundational models, all Gen AI. So Amazon's playing the open card. They're playing, I want the startups to be back on my, my camp. And that's what made Amazon. If you look at Amazon Web Services, they would not be where they are today without startups. So clearly that's the game. So to me, this is all a kind of interesting dynamic, a power dynamic in the industry. The big guys want to promote regulation because they want to be the evolutionary leader and be the sustainable model versus disruptive technology and the innovator's dilemma, Dave, right? The startups are the ones that are going to make it happen. That's the silent war going on right now is that the startups are surging and the big guys are stuck in the middle between. It's a decision between, do they enable them as customers or they keep them in a cage? And that's going to be the tell sign. And we're going to be covering it. We're going to go into Amazon, reinvent Microsoft's show. We'll see what they're doing. And if Microsoft doesn't invite the cube to their show, then they're the, they're caging people. You know, you talk about, you talk about startups and this is a point that I think a lot of people miss and you just, you just nailed it. Amazon, you know, so many things about the cloud, you know, agility, shifting CAPEX to OPEX, but innovation, when people talk about innovation, okay, yeah, there's innovation inside of Amazon, but a big part of that innovation flywheel, as you just pointed out, and Amazon had this more than any other cloud vendor, by far had startups building, every startup would start the company, where do you go? You didn't start by saying, oh, I think I'll go to Azure. Maybe not happens now sometimes. Could maybe, you know, Microsoft makes it attractive for them. But in the early days, you know, last decade, you would start with AWS. No question about it. I think still today that's where you'd start and we would buy a sun server and install a bunch of Unix and Oracle licenses. No, you went to the cloud and you went to the Amazon cloud and that was an innovation engine. And so I often, when I talk to customers and companies in, you know, that have an on-prem legacy, IBM, HPE, Dell, even Cisco last week, et cetera, very heavily on-prem, where are the startups in their ecosystems? Where are the startups in terms of, you know, coming on board and driving that innovation flywheel? And there's bits and pieces, you see them, you know, every now and then, but they're few and far between. And this is what's going to be interesting to see if a snowflake or a Databricks or a Mongo, who are, as we know, John, they consider themselves platforms, because they are, they're not products, they're not ISVs, they're not ISVs, they're not product companies, they're platform companies. Can they attract, will they attract startups? That's going to be a key enabler to their innovation flywheel. Yeah, and in fact, on SiliconANGLE, David Strum is an article called the Cloud Conundrum, the Changing Balance of Microservices versus Model Look Applications, riffing off your breaking analysis and also highlighting that article that went out that said that Amazon Prime's not using microservices as much and his point is not so much as containers and microservices and Kubernetes versus a Model Look, it's situational decision-making, right? If you have a small team of engineers, why the hell would you want to have like a complex microservices, highly complex environment? So what's happening is that you have old legacy environments that need to move from VMs to say containers, that's complex. There, microservices, you build everything. And then if you've got a small team, you can build a Model Look as long as you plug it into something that's architecturally sound. So they're not mutually exclusive. The point is, we're in the era of choice, right? That's what's happening here. And I think that's the story that's coming out of the cloud players is what Gen AI is going to highlight very quickly. And I said this in my last, the last pod, it's going to highlight very quickly and reward those who can create product market fit and then go to growth, okay? And what's happening now is that it's at the top of the stack, not the physical layer. So Gen One cloud of Amazon, as you pointed out, was for starters because the choice was build a data center, spend 50 to $100,000 of cash before you even get started to provision servers and software and a data center. Well, you put a credit card down, you get the product market fit. Well, the demo works and then VC gives me money. That was the choice, spend a hundred grand, do a demo, get funding, put your credit card down, spend $10, get traction, get funding. So that was the multiple. Now that's that physical, that changed the game, storage, networking, servers. So Gen One cloud was all about making the infrastructure better, undifferentiated, heavy lifting, as Andy Jassy calls it. Now scaling differentiated heavy lifting is what AI does. So now that the game shifts to who can create the value with customers faster, right? That's the new game. So if you have an application and you're a developer, I just interviewed a CIO who quit for Big Bank in New York. He's the founder of a company. He's got multiple startups that he's done by himself. One of them is three employees. They already have product market fit and doing millions in sales. Millions, three people. And that's because they use AI to refactor the application layer used on top of AWS or cloud. So the game is going to shift to the top of the stack where the product market fit is going to accelerate to growth. And that's going to change the game. And I'm telling you right now, that's going to really bust people up a bit on the legacy side when young kids, when they're friends in the dorm room, come in and build the product and the people sitting in the boardroom, the big company, who are these kids? And I tell you, that's coming fast. So I want to pick up on something you said and you mentioned microservices and it sort of triggered something in my brain. I just did a breaking analysis with George Gilbert. We got the scoop on Snowflake through our research and just some digging. And we're going to drop that tomorrow on breaking analysis on what's coming up in Snowflake Summit, which by the way, we haven't been in the eight on this, at least not yet. So we want to break it before they end the head. There we have go. We hear it right now. Yeah, and so, but basically, if you look at the web 2.0 model, you know this very well, you got separate analytic and business intelligence platforms, which you see a BI and you got AI and ML and they're separate to different platforms. And then you got microservices that sort of organize that application logic together. And in the future, these are going to be integrated. Operational and analytic systems are coming together. You're going to have unified business intelligence and AI and ML. And you're going to organize the application logic as a digital twin of your business, like a real world representation of your business in a semantic layer. And what, for instance, we sort of our epiphany is that what Snowflake is doing is enabling all these different data types to be able to compose the next level of data apps. And so, and you're likely going to be doing that using generative AI and natural language processing. And you're going to dramatically compress the time it takes to develop applications. And the other thing, John, is it's a new breed of data apps, which is the completely different way to think about it. Think about Uber for businesses, across all businesses, not just a custom Uber app. And that, we think, is going to be the next big battleground. And who's going to be there? Yes, not only Snowflake and Databricks, but AWS, Microsoft announced fabric, but by the way, it's way behind where Snowflake is. But they're working very closely with Databricks and they've unified the analytic piece that you guys got to go somewhere else with a transaction piece. Oracle will say they already have it, but that's bullshit. I mean, it's just not true. It's a lot of legacy stuff, but they've done a good job with that legacy stuff. But it's also AWS, Google and Databricks and Snowflake and Microsoft all battling for that next generation of data apps. That's going to be a really interesting and fun thing to watch. And you're going to see a lot of it now accelerating because of generative AI. Yeah. I mean, I think that you're completely right. The model's flipping, right? So again, the script is flipping, the top of the stacks, some headlines I got going on right now for article I'm considering using for the Matt Garmin scoop is the first headline says transforming businesses with generative AI and interview with Matt Garmin. That's one. The other one is commitment to silicon, compute and model diversity, meaning foundation model diversity, fuels generative AI advancements. Third headline I'm looking at is fueling open source innovation and partner collaboration in generative AI. The fourth headline is empowering, secure innovation and safeguarding data. Okay, so again, I'm playing with headlines and there's our fifth one choice, driving innovation, enabling choice. This is interesting and once one interview generated six potential headlines, six. I've never written a story like that ever before where I could roll with three different titles in one interview. That means is generative AI is hitting so much diverse landscape, whatever you're looking at is going to change and I call that beauties in the eye of the beholder model where it's like if you look at something, depending on who you are, what beautiful is is what you think it is and what you want it to be. So if you want choice, you got choice. If you want silicon advancements and compute, you're going to get there. You want foundation model diversity, you don't want that. And by the way, that's the big debate right now, Dave and the industry. Which foundation model or LLM is going to rule the world and or how do you combine and mix and match those? They're calling them cocktails, right? So or ensembles is the word that they're using. You know, it's an ensemble of models or cocktail because it's not one, it's a combination. So this generative AI stuff is totally legit and it's completely Wild West moment, right? It's crazy. I mean, it's running wild right now in a good way. Let me ask you a question. You were a decade ahead when you said data is the new development kit. I mean, it's like so far ahead because that data is the new development kit now. So if I had to ask you, where was the best place to develop applications in the last 10 years? I think web 2.0, web 2.0 plus, where was the best place to develop apps this past decade? The cloud, of course. Cloud, in which cloud? You say the Amazon cloud, right? Let's just do some examples. Dropbox, it's file sharing, it's FTP with a UI on it. That was the original product, right? So the battle, in my view, is going to be where is the best place, where is going to be the best place to build data apps in this new generation of apps? And I would argue that's going to be a combination of a cloud and the data platform and it's going to be the data platform that makes it the easiest, fastest, best performance, lowest elapsed time, and most cost efficient and productive to build apps. And it's going to be done, there's no question in my mind, it's going to be done on top of the cloud, most likely AWS cloud, but other clouds as well, who are kind of maybe not, yeah, they're catching up. And, but there's going to be another super cloud layer on top of that, where you're going to build data apps. I think right now, Snowflake is an obvious participant player, front runner, as is Databricks, as is, as are the three cloud companies, and as are TBD, if somebody will emerge. Well, if I have to look forward and try to guess the next, by the way, that was 19, 2007, when I wrote that post. Okay, so that just put it in perspective, okay? 15 years ago, 20 years ago, coming up on podcasts, and it's interesting how the journey's been, but I tell you, to me, I always look at innovation in two flavors. You bolt something onto something, or you build an abstraction layer on top of it. That's like the architectural operating model of innovation in technology. You either make something, abstract away something complex and make it simple, and then you get adoption, or you bolt onto something to accelerate something else. So you either bolt on or overlay on top. So to me, I think, we look at AI, I'm thinking to myself, okay, why was Amazon successful? Because they created an alternative to getting something up and running fast, and more performant, AKA a SaaS app, and cheap. You know, credit card swipe, you're on Amazon with phishing your desktop app into the cloud. You can go show a VC demo, that was my example earlier. AI is going through that same kind of moment where how fast can I stand up something, a value, and how expensive will it be? Can I do it for less? Okay, so there's going to be an Amazon Web Services moment for AI. The question is, you can't just build a CapEx Cloud for LLMs and foundation models, it's too expensive. So it's going to happen on top of a cloud. So it's either AWS, Azure, or Google in that order, or now Oracle, people who have CapEx. FitSea would love this conversation at Platformomics because that's whole premises that the CapEx is the advantage. Our super cloud premise came from the fact that Snowflake and or these companies can build on top of the CapEx and be the next AWS on top of AWS. So this is why I said the disrupting model versus the stainer. So if you're going to build on something, you either build on it and leverage it. And that's what I think AWS is going to do. And I think Microsoft's probably in their boardroom right now going, you know, like this, what do we do? What do we do? Do we open up to Kimono and build on top? Or do we go in and try to cage all these people in our ecosystem like our old way? You know, and keep them in the ecosystem and milk office and all of our apps. Well, they're more an innovator's dilemma than AWS is in my opinion. Microsoft's got to make that choice. If Amazon stays true to the startup, then your question would be, which company will build that service? ML is the one example that Madrona invested in. Jerry Trenn at Greylock's got an investment in this area. Whoever can stand up that service where I can just deploy my data and get the benefits, will win. That's- And I think that data is going to be real-time data. That's going to be a key. And you're going to use, organizations are going to use data and AI to actually create or orchestrate that what I was calling before, the digital twin of your business, that Uber for business, the people, the places, the things, and all the activities associated with that, where these real-time data products, if you will, are elements that can be brought together to actually do stuff. And that's going to be really interesting. Well, it's got to be an overlay. It's got to be an overlay. But wait, but wait. But it says a lot of that data is going to be in the cloud. But a lot of data is not going to be in the cloud. It's going to be at the edge. Now, the edge is messy right now. We know this. We were actually talking to one of the folks, one of the engineers who was in the, at Cisco Live, when he was asking us, he was over here. He overheard us at dinner talking to Zeus. And he's like, hmm, that's interesting. What do you think of the edge? And it's true. It's messy right now. It's real-time, too. It's real-time. But that's the thing. It's real-time. And so I think some new type of, right now it's all the rage is, who's got the best LLM? I think that's going to evolve, quote unquote, up the stack. Who's got the best user experiences based on great data and great LLMs and foundation models? But then combining that into a user experience, that's going to be where the value is created. It's not the LLM in and of itself. It's the user experience that's going to be built on top of that and how you apply that LLM to create a great user experience and user value. Well, yeah, well, first of all, you're exactly right. But I would also add to that and say that the user experience with the LLMs, whether it's an ensemble or cocktail, whatever you call it, it's going to be a combination of models. And those combinations of models got to be selected properly so that you have all the IP rights protected and that the licensing are lined up. You don't want to put your IP into a public LLM like open AI because you lose the rights to that IP. So you're going to want to have some sort of relationship of single tenant meets public. So private cloud, public cloud kind of dynamic. Number one, number two, those apps also are going to not change the laws of physics. You still got to store stuff, move packets from point A to point B. So you're going to need to have physical layer innovation. In other words, if you're at the edge in real time and you got your watch on or you got an app or whatever in your factory floor with a robot making Audi cars, whatever it is, they need data. Like you still have to get data to the spot. So you have availability of data, highly available, high availability. Those two words mean things. High availability doesn't mean highly available and it's a semantic definition, but. You're talking about IP. Did you see that TikTok thing with the CEO of Ford? Did you hear this? Which story? I wonder if I can play this. Hold on a second. Let me try to play this. I'll put it right up to the mic. This is unbelievable. Listen to this. Hold on. If I explain to the listeners how crazy our software system is and why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right, you'd be just, well, I'll do it very quickly. Say probably $500 a vehicle or let's say 350 quid a vehicle. We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other. So Bosch or do the body control module, someone else to do the seat control module, someone else to do the engine control module. And we'd have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front and I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat control software. So even if I had a high speed modem in the vehicle and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose configuration of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages. You know, all the structure of the software is different as a millions of code and we can't even understand it all. So, you know, that's why at Ford, we've decided in the second generation product, completely in source electric architecture. So he was talking about basically saying, that's Ford CEO basically tipping the hat to Tesla for having the advantage. Lawyer told me five or six years ago, I think it was when Tesla made the decision to not go with Mobileye and that's coincided with them doing their own, you know, ARM based architecture for chips because they wanted to be able to control their own data and IP destiny and now you hear the Ford CEO. I mean, everybody's going to be facing this problem. That's just completely validates everything that I've been saying about open source. So this is why open source wins, okay. What that highlights is Ford and whoever they are companies want to be involved in open sources, open sources where the fastest innovation is and once it's in the open, you then bring it in and you harden it. Open sources where all the eyes are on is collective intelligence. It's a great algorithm for having things mostly secure but to the extent that you can customize it, that's key. And why I'm bringing this up is because the advantages of that helps the Fords of the world, which are the big enterprises, it could be for banks as well, but they need security. So here's what's going to happen. Open source is going to completely turbocharge growth, more growth than we're even seeing right now. And number two, the business model of venture capital will move to open source because the people that nail those projects will end up starting commercial companies to support Ford and the companies. So the Red Hat model, which we always say, will there be another Red Hat date? Well, guess what? There might be in this generation because of that specific reason. And that's funny. You used to say Red Hat will be the next Red Hat. Well, I mean, we were looking at the landscape of the current, but if you start to look forward and look at that trend and that video right there, to me, puts an exclamation point on the fact that proprietary software is dead. Now you can take proprietary software and embed it into your own stuff, but buying off the shelf proprietary hardware and software, probably not going to be viable. And again, JJ would love this. Joseph Jax would love this because he runs OSS Fund, big VC fund around open, commercial open source. But to me, that is the play. And I guarantee you this series A market will go down. Explain that. Yeah, explain that because people are going to be confused by what you just said. They're going to say, well, wait a minute, John, doesn't that speak to doing your own proprietary software? If I'm open, isn't that going to be subjecting me to more IP leakage? Explain why that's not the case. Okay, so here's why it's not the case. Let's just say that you and I come up with the QBAP and we open source and we say, we want to have a new kind of knowledge system called the cube where it's the best thoughts from all of our guests' brains that we've interviewed over the years. Hey, good idea. Hey, good idea. It's called the cube AI, thecubeai.com, check it out. Waitlist only right now. If we open source that we create a community, let's just say then 10,000 developers jump in and work with us and we create open source. That software's on GitHub. It's free for everybody. People are contributing and making the software better. It becomes the most kick-ass thing than anyone can use it. They can take their own YouTube videos and do that cube library for them. Okay, and they can take that and use that benefit as a collective donation if you will or contribution to society. We might want to have the intimate knowledge with our engineering team to pull that out and build on top of it our own cube specific thing. Okay, and then hire the foundation and the open source to support it or create a company called thecube, Inc. That sells at the corporations and we charge support because we know the most about the code. That's what Red Hat did with Linux. That's the business model that you think you're going to see more of coming out of the woodwork with this new way because the upside for the corporations is to have more open source and have a supporting vendor like a Red Hat type to support it. And that's why I think that's going to increase the open source. So we'll see, but all data points to that because that Ford interview just absolutely proves the point that that market is selling license and proprietary IP can be replicated in open source and then deployed and supported by a company. That's a better scenario if that makes any sense. Yeah, it does. That's really interesting, John. I think, look, I mean, the future is changing right before it's happening, occurring right before our eyes. We've talked about this before. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we've seen so many waves. I've been this wave is moving so, so quickly. You know, maybe the funding environment is not as insane. I don't think it is as it was in the dot-com days. It'll probably get there. I kind of like that, that it's more of a slow roll. It seems like the funding environment's more like what we saw in the cloud, mobile, social, big data. Maybe a little bit more concentrated than that. And maybe in that sense, it's bubble-licious within AI and not as broad-based as the cloud, mobile data and social and big data. But not as stupid and feeding frenzy as was the dot-com. And so it's a different dynamic, but it's happening, I think, in terms of the pace of innovations happening faster than anything I've ever seen before. It's insane. There's some China news here on Get To, but there's some breaking news around AWS. I mean, Amazon that I want to get to. Did you hear that Sequoy is breaking up their firm? It's a three companies, one for China, which is under scrutiny for their partner Chen there, who's been accused of mishandling and redirecting funds to China and all kinds of corruption. That's interesting news coming out of that. India fund, which is going to be for that emerging market, which is booming, and then finally their normal fund. And I just saw that people are moving, OpenAI is moving their engineers out of, or Microsoft's moving their engineers out of, China, they're moving their top AI researchers from China, Beijing, to Vancouver, and part of a way to stop the Chinese companies from poaching them. So interesting dynamic, Microsoft doing that. So it's a China dynamic going on there, Dave, continue to be politics. Now the DOJ, I'm sorry, the Microsoft, I'm sorry, Amazon, I can't control all these big tech companies. Amazon and Apple, okay? Federal judge rules that Apple and Amazon must face an antitrust lawsuit, accusing them of conspiring to inflate iPhone and iPad prices on AWS Amazon's website. Just hitting, just hit. Roy does got the story. And Western District- Why are iPhones more expensive on Amazon than they are on other places? The Western District of Washington. The Western District of Washington, Floyd versus Amazon and Apple Inc. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Yeah, but, I mean, I don't know, I've never purchased any, I might have purchased headphones or something from Apple. Lawsuit that claims Apple and Amazon elbowed out resellers will proceed. I don't know what brought that up, maybe to trigger your rant. Well, that's different. To trigger a rant. But that's different, right? But I mean, seriously, are Apple products more expensive on Amazon than they are elsewhere? It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, you can just Google them and find the best price. Go to an Apple store. Yeah, the price is always pretty consistent for anything new. I know, it just seems ridiculous. And there's a good black market, black market, but use market for this stuff. I mean, I don't know. Is that really a problem that we're trying to solve is iPhone prices? More and more government work announced. Your favorite topic, blockchain and crypto, because you love crypto as do I, but you're more bullish on me, but the hammer's coming down on crypto. The SEC sued Binance and the founder CZ, Chengping Zhao on securities violations. And the SEC is suing Coinbase, alleging that it's operating an unprecedented unregistered, I'm sorry, unregistered exchange. Well, Binance is gonna say, SEC chair offered to advise the crypto company in 2019. So the guy who's the chairman, SEC chair, Gary Gensler, offered to be an advisor to Binance. Now he's suing them. Yeah, Gensler is out to get crypto. I mean, let's see. So I think Binance and Coinbase are two different stories, but they're getting lumped together as bad people. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Brian Armstrong's always been pretty forthcoming about, hey, we want your guidance on being regulated and lay down some guardrails, or some guardrails, but guidelines. And Gensler has said, well, the guidelines are already there. You should be regulated by the SEC just like any other security. And so for obvious reasons, Coinbase is saying, well, we're not though. We're not a security. We're just, you know, we're this exchange. And in Gensler saying, yeah, you are, all I got to do is find one example of a crypto that really is a security and I'm coming after you. And there probably are. They probably pushed the envelope a little too hard, but Coinbase is, I think, a good company. I don't, I mean, they are trying to, I think, skirt the system because it'd be expensive as hell if they had to get regulated. I think Binance is a totally different situation. I think Coinbase, I'd call it like, don't ask, don't tell, you know, tell us what to do. And he throws that back at the government because he knows they're never going to solve the problem. And I think Gensler's smart. Gensler's saying, hey, we have the rules. You got to follow them. And I think that's probably going to end up okay. And it's going to probably cost Coinbase more money. Binance is different. Binance is international. By the way, I have experience with both platforms. I've been, I've invested on both. I've purchased crypto on both platforms, you know, years and years and years ago. And Binance, interestingly enough, so there was, there used to not be a Binance US. It was just Binance. And then when the US started coming after them, the US government, they said, all right, we're going to ask all the US customers to move their assets into Binance US. Okay, so if you're a US customer, you got to move your assets into Binance US or you're not going to be able to access them. So I said, uh-oh, this isn't going to end well. And I decided not to move my assets. I moved a bunch of them out into an air gap vault. But I kept some in there just for kicks because I like to pay attention. It forces you to pay attention. But I decided to keep those assets into the Binance classic, okay. And you can get around it. You're going to VPN, you could mask your IP and you could actually still log in for a while. And then that stopped recently. And then the emails emerged where the CEO of Binance is basically talking to people in his organization saying, we got a big customer in Chicago and let's keep servicing them. As well, when I leave the country, I can log into my Binance classic account, okay. So Binance very clearly is breaking the law on purpose and there's evidence of that. It appears allegedly, but allegedly there's evidence and it appears that they're screwed. Which law, US law? Yes, US law. Yeah, yeah. And so, yeah, the international law, they're still cranking. The siliconangle, siliconangle.com, that's our site, the old news there. Binance story up there. Binance US to halt customer dollar withdrawals amid SEC lawsuit. They informed users that they would lose their ability to withdraw their dollar funds from its platform next Tuesday. Yeah, right. And they also no longer accepting dollar deposits. So here they are, boom, freeze. Right, so you could tell years ago, you could tell Binance was gonna, that was not gonna end well. Again, Coinbase I think is a completely different situation. Coinbase is legit. They gotta just, Coinbase should just, I mean, I think this is an example. We'll get to the rant section. Now I've got two rants, I'll start with Coinbase. It wasn't planning on ranting on Coinbase, but I'll start. Now let's get to the rant section. So let's go. Coinbase is legit. They need to be out there. The government should work within their legit entrepreneurial venture. Yeah, do the audit, do what you gotta do. Binance, they're international. That's a black box. I wouldn't even go in there out of, nope, nope, boom. But Coinbase, they're in the Bay Area. They employ a lot of people. They're doing the right thing. The government's the one that's screwing them over. So that's my rant on the crypto. You want to rant on crypto? I do. I want a same rant, but different. So I heard Gensler on TV with Kramer this past week when we're out in Las Vegas. And Gensler, I mean, for all the duplicity, like you said, he was trying to advise Binance, but he had a strong case. He basically says, I got these guys dead to rights. And I think he's got Coinbase too. And I think they're gonna have to play ball. So they will. But then Kramer starts ranting on all crypto as crap. These things are worthless. Now, one thing I don't agree with Gensler, by the way, is he said, we have currencies. We have the US dollar. We have the Japanese yen. We have the Euro. We have the British pound sterling. Why do we need another currency? Well, let's see, 2008 financial crisis. Let's just print more money. I mean, it's the poster child. It's basically the case for Bitcoin. Now, and of course, Kramer threw all crypto under the bus, said they're all worthless paper. Of course, they're not paper. They're digital assets. And he just started ranting on all crypto, like he's the guy to protect the little guy. Kramer made a bunch of dough in crypto. Okay, no regrets would come on CNBC and talk about how great crypto is. And the guy's like really compelling. And after that, the price of crypto always goes up because he gets people excited. He's a great salesperson. And Kramer made a bunch of money on crypto. Okay, so that is really- You think he's hiding the ball on that one? No, I think it's known. It's well known. He talked about it. He's not hiding it, but he's not advertising it now. He's like flipped and he's like, I'm for the little guy. Get rid of these assets. Don't even, he's full of crap. And so it's just, he made his money just like Chimot. Now they're out onto the next thing. But here's my, then Cathy Woods was on today. She owns Coinbase and she was saying, and has said in the past, she thinks Bitcoin, she said, Bitcoin's going to five or 600,000. Her positive case is Bitcoin's going to a million. I love her. I think she's awesome. I think she's really smart. She's ballsy. And, but I still, you know, Chimot on all insid cryptos dead. I don't think it's dead. I think a lot of cryptos are gonna be dead. Chimot was the hardcore crypto guy. I know. He made so much money. And he made a lot of dough. Well, but he, to his credit, he's, he's ahead of the game. You know, he, he, he made a lot of dough on Spacks and then he got out. So wherever Chimot is probably going to make a lot of money and it's probably going to blow up and there's been a lot of scams, but he's going to be, you know, squeaky clean. It's, but I think that the bootlegger. Yeah. I mean, Joe Kennedy, right? Joe Kennedy made hundreds of millions of dollars, basically bootlegging. Okay. Hey, they're entrepreneurs. So anyway, I think that, you know, Crame is full of shit. And I think Coinbase is going to be just fine. And I think Binance, you know, maybe I'll get, I got a little bit of dough in there. I'll get out next time. I'm in London, maybe. So my other rant is the Mark Andreessen article he wrote on AI. I know Mark Andreessen VC at Andreessen Horowitz, Palo Alto guy. His wife is the daughter of a big developer in Stanford. He's a hermit. Everyone knows he kind of stays in his house. Doesn't go out much. Hates going out in the world. He wrote the seminal post years ago on why software is eating the world. It's almost 12 years ago. He just penned another one. Says AI is going to save the world. 7,000 word blog post. Now, first of all, let me just put a disclaimer out there before I start hammering Andreessen Horowitz. He blocked me on Twitter. So that's one. So it's no reason to block me on Twitter. So he's a tool for doing that, Dave. That's my rant number one. So Andreessen Horowitz blocking all the media people, which by the way, I was a fan of him before he blocked me. So now he's got, I've been unfanned. So I'm not a fan given, he blocked me. So that's the logic. This article is a little bit out there, but he's basically saying that regulation, AI will save the world. And he brings us interesting comparison about, he calls it, you know, during the Luddites come out of the woodwork and that he calls it when regulation comes in, you get the bootleggers. The bootleggers would take advantage of the regulation, like during the prohibition. And then you have the, you know, the people who are high society thought leaders, they don't make any money because they're too busy, you know, pontificating about thought leadership. So he calls them the moral panic missionaries. He used the word baptists. He calls the moral panic missionaries baptists and those who take advantage of the hysteria as bootleggers, they earn the money from the regulation. James Farrell and our team wrote a great post on this on SiliconANGLE.com. But Mark's kind of out there. He's, I think they've been very weird. They do all their things direct. They've always been a wall of Silicon Valley. They always wanted to be their own vertically integrated Silicon Angle. And I mean Silicon Valley, I don't like the post. I think it's out there. It's not as clean as software eating in the world. I thought it was a great post. That one set the agenda. This one was more of a FU to the industry and kind of a very self-serving post. You know, Mark Andreessen got lucky, built the browser. What has he done lately? So come on, come on, get on the ball. Made a lot of cash. So I want to give a plug to Mugly, Bob Mugly, his book just came out, Data Pernerse. He's got something going on in Silicon Valley. I'm not around that week, but he's got a book signing or something, he should go. But he had this great curve in there, this, you know, the innovation of data. And he had a line, you know, an arrow going to, here's where we are now, it's LLMs. And not too much further, you know, 10, 20, 30 years, like all by 2050, the thing ended. And he had general artificial intelligence in there and singularity is not that far away. So basically the end of humanity is he didn't say that, but I inferred from his chart. And then a guy from, I think the CEO of Coursera said, you know, basically we got nothing to worry about with AI, which I wouldn't totally agree with. But that was kind of an interesting little angle that I wanted to throw in there. Everything AI is only as good as what we make it. I mean, I think the human plus AI is better than AI has been what we've been saying on theCUBE. I think everyone we talked to that's smart is all saying that you got to let it run. And this is why I'm hardcore about this big war between the big companies like AWS, Azure and Google, as they fight amongst themselves for supremacy. You also have the dynamic, if this is truly an inflection point, again, by our definition, an inflection point is a seminal structural change at tectonic shifts, plates are shifting where something new completely takes over the old. PC generation, Steve Jobs in his 20s, Bill Gates in his 20s, that whole crew replaced a complete generation of computer leaders before them. If that's the case right now, then Amazon, Azure and Google will all have to fall to the side or keep up with the new talent. And the question is, will the startups capture that or is it an environment in the first time in history where both can participate, given these a level playing field on agility? So if everyone's, all things being equal or agile, they both should be able to coexist. That to me is what we're watching right now. I'm watching that very closely and squinting through the PR of those hyperscalers because you can see their moves. Microsoft is very closed, very much putting people in the cages. You don't see a lot of ecosystem startups coming out of Microsoft, they're very scripted. Meanwhile, Amazon's got people all over the world on there, LinkedIn, spread in the word, they're all open. Matt Garmin on the record says, we're open, we'll run every single model on AWS, including open AI. Google, they have a chance to completely change the game, they open the Commono with their AI, with Bard, they could then influence this next generation of developers. And so all that going on with powering open source, Dave is going to be a rumble in the next five to 10 years. So I would say, I don't think it's the first time in history by the way, I would argue that the internet was an example where the incumbents, I'd say the incumbents took more advantage. Who, name them. Well, flip it, who emerged in the internet as disruptor? IBM didn't do that, right? Hold on, who emerged in the internet as the disruptor, Amazon? Google, well, yeah, who started, let's go, let's go. Amazon, okay, let's name them, Cisco through them. Amazon, Google, keep going. Cisco, Cisco. Yeah, that wouldn't have incumbent. No, they weren't, they were started in 95, they're basically in the 90s. They had a router that connected offices, that weren't really the internet. Okay, I'll give you Cisco. So Amazon, okay, if I'm going to give you Google, I could argue Google was cloud, but I guess it was before cloud. So Amazon, Google, Cisco, who else? Google basically invented cloud, Salesforce. Amazon, Google, Cisco, who else? Salesforce. Companies like Salesforce was cloud before cloud, they had their own cloud, basically with Oracle. Salesforce was, if Larry Ellis, Salesforce wasn't internet, was Salesforce internet a company or would you say they're a SaaS company? You could say the first cloud. I consider SaaS part of the internet revolution. See, I think it's more cloud, SaaS. Okay, hold on, cloud wasn't, the internet was a generational shift, cloud was not. I agree, all I'm saying is that the incumbents, big companies, got a lot out of the internet, Walmart. I would put, well, yeah, well, Walmart is a physical goods too, but they were smart, they put physical and digital, but then they got killed by Amazon. So, look, I think you put the internet from- They didn't get killed? Walmart didn't get killed? They're kicking ass. Well, I mean, Amazon came in, took over the e-commerce piece. Disrupted retail, but I'd give you Amazon. No question. eBay, eBay was a winner, yeah, in that generation. I mean, I would consider like 1994, 95, they called it the information superhighway. That was when the internet was connecting people. So the web came on around 95, 96, 97, kind of kicked in and it was early growth and it was very minimal functionality. So put that as a marker, that's a marker. And then take that through cloud, say 2010. That to me is a generational shift. PC 78, 77, 78, say 80, you know, okay, two, 94, right? A 15-year run. So you got these 15-year windows, 10 to 20-year windows. iPhone was an exception, I think that was a game changer, but that built on top of the mobile web 2.0, which created the SaaS at the same time. So the SaaS exploded, cloud exploded, iPhone moment, boom. Now cloud comes here and now we're at AI. So I think that compressed there and you put it all there and now you got the next wave coming. So the next wave to me is why people are freaking out, why Andreessen wrote that post. You know, the moral people, you know, shake in the alarm, you know, gloom and doom and you got the bootleggers and you got the Bapus as they call them. So I think that's what's happening. So the question is, is this an inflection point like those moments where it's like PC, internet web, AI? Well, so again, so I'm going to try to, as you're talking, I'm making my case here. So we got Amazon, Google, Cisco, where they're sort of disruptors and they're the benefit of it. I got on the incumbents, that's what we're talking about. Can the incumbents take advantage? I got Dell, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft. Well, Microsoft really didn't take advantage of the internet. They almost, they missed it. And then they came back later. So I'll take Microsoft on this. Dell, Walmart, Apple, the banks, JPMorgan Chase, City, Fidelity, B of A, Goldman, FedEx, Intel. These were incumbents that took advantage of the internet. They're implementers of it. That's what I'm saying. Oh, I'm sorry. When I say incumbents, I mean existing companies, like the buyers of tech, right? Who become tech companies. I'm referring to enablers, like the supply chain. You're talking about pure play tech companies. No, suppliers of technology. Yeah, but everybody's a technology company these days. But yeah, okay. Fair enough. Well, that's because they began. I see what you're saying. That's why I was kind of triggered me because I'm saying no. I'll talk about IBM, Digital Equipment Corporation, Prime Mini-Computer, ULT-Packard, Silicon Graphics no longer, MIPS. It's Generations to Storage Company. Okay, who got screwed during the dot.com? Which incumbents got hosed in the dot.com? Well, I mean, everyone got hosed on the dot.com bubble, right? No, no, no, not the bubble. I mean, which like, so Amazon, but that was, again, industry. That was retail, right? I think if you look at an example of the web and that bubble. So Cisco, really. Walmart would be an example of a company that rode that wave and crossed over, but still had the two-pronged strategy of physical and online, okay? Companies that went out of business with like all these sun microsystems went out of business. I guess what I'm saying is that the PC era, completely disrupted Prime, Wang, DG, Apollo, killed them. Killed, right? The proprietary network operating systems. The microprocessor-based architectures destroyed the mini-computer business. And enabled TCPIP, which became out of the OSI model, Open Systems Interconnect, and that would standardize the physical layer to the transport and session layer, right? And then the internet comes out and so Cisco took advantage of that and disrupted all the existing network, SNA, and all that stuff. Yeah, husband and wife and Stanford, and they funded and they jumped and they jumped, it was quite a bit over. But the internet didn't do the same. Netscape, gone. Yahoo, irrelevant. AOL, gone. Well, I'm not gone, but irrelevant, right? So all the granddaddy technology companies of the internet really didn't have a lasting impact. Well, the durability question comes down to were they durable in their differentiation sustainability or was it incompetent management? Some would say Yahoo had incompetent management, but they had the brand position. Google's ongoing lead killing it. They're doing great. So they can survive. Which companies got disrupted? Which companies got disrupted by the internet? Like, not really. Microsoft didn't get, that was, they didn't really even ever get disrupted. They just became irrelevant. So that's all I'm saying. I mean, the internet really didn't kill IBM. I mean, that was IBM was self-inflicted for other reasons. Well, that's why. Or HPE, HP, HP really wasn't hurt by the internet. Dell was helped by it. I tried to explain this to you before. You kind of argued, and maybe you weren't getting it. I'll try to explain to you. So here's what I was saying before. That's really condescending, but bring it on. No, okay, okay. So you have vendors that supply people. And you was just saying about Citibank. All these people have applications. The internet killed old school, old guard ways of doing things, business models. And that's what I was saying earlier in the pod about the AI having impact. So for example, the entrepreneur I was just interviewing today, he's got a healthcare app with three people doing millions of dollars in revenue. Okay, for healthcare. Okay, he's disrupting healthcare himself, his application. That is an example of what that does. You're trying to put it in a box. Say, oh, the vendor IBM got replaced by this company. You just made my case. No, it's too pronged. You just made my case. You just completely contradicted yourself. It doesn't happen. No, Dave, I'm talking about technology companies. And now you're just talking about healthcare. Yeah, but Dave, the enablement of the internet definitely shifted and took people out. We just talked that through those companies. The suppliers, the incumbents, and there's a long list from Sun Microsystems for proprietary gear. That wasn't internet. That wasn't the internet. They fucking, they capitalized on the internet, Sun and those guys because- Not Scott McNeely was on the queue. He said, I should have called it the cloud, the network is the computer. They actually had, they actually had the clouds. And they didn't- Tell me which companies, which tech companies, specifically got disrupted by the internet the way the mini-computer companies got disrupted. It's hard to name. They benefited from the internet is what I'm saying. And so I think the same thing can happen with AI. The internet didn't have a supplier, right? The internet is the supply. It's like the oxygen. You used to mention Cisco. You mentioned, I mentioned Netscape. They were internet companies. They were internet enabled companies that built software for browse websites. Okay. Well, Netscape did. There was no websites before Netscape. So they didn't really disrupt anyone. Well, no PCs. They disrupted the Boston Public Library. They disrupted the Boston Public Library. Netscape. Yeah, Amazon. Netscape was a browser that surfed websites. There was a handful of websites, not many. And those websites had information on them. Okay. There was no internet. I'm just saying, the way it's- It was a net new- This all started with your saying, you said for the first time in history. Yes. Right? Yes. And incumbents might be able to take advantage of this new way. Because there's- And I'm saying- Because the suppliers in the market, like I compare more of the PC revolutions, why I use that analogy, because there were suppliers like IBM, Deck that sold computing to big companies like Ford. And Ford's going, I don't can't handle my license. I got too many things going on. I had business problems. So those companies were eliminated or reduced to rubble by the PC and what came after it. Right, and that didn't happen in the internet. I think you agree. Because it's new functionality. There's nothing to disrupt. It was computing serving people for companies to do stuff. And so the debate we're having, I think, is what's going to happen with AI? And I'm saying- AI has suppliers right now. You got open AI, went with Microsoft, but they went the other way around. You have cloud out there with AWS and Azure providing computing power. So is open AI going to disrupt Google? That's a good question. Not when they did the mafia deal with Microsoft potentially. We'll see what happens. Again, what we're watching- I think what's going to happen, here's what I think is going to happen. I think you're going to have new disruptors come out. No question about it. But I think the existing guard, which the old guard, you know the Amazons, the Googles, the Microsofts, the old guard is going to be able to take advantage of AI for their business because they have such massive businesses, they're going to be able to drive productivity right to the bottom line and they're going to be doing just fine. And they're going to miss something that maybe it's open AI or some other startup here. Somebody's going to come up with some new business model. So I think it's going to be a tide that lifts all boats. I mean, I know it's a bromide, but I think that's what's going to happen. And that's probably the first time in history. I mean, I think the internet is more similar in that regard is what the debate we were just having. The first time in history would be referred to that DEC, IBM and those guys would not die. They'd all adopt. And the reason why they do die is because they have either bromide or dogma or don't see it or can't react fast enough. Self-inflicted wounds, or what I'm saying the same thing happened on the internet. My premise is that if this market where agility is all equal, assume that there's some decent management, they could then capture it. So again. I agree. I agree. But let me try to summarize my statement. This is where I think we disagree. I think the AI wave is going to be more like the internet in that it's going to, the incumbents are going to be able to take advantage of it. I think the difference is going to be, you're going to see more disruptors come out of the technology industry, whereas I don't think you had a lot of disruptors coming out of the technology industry per se. You certainly saw it with Amazon, but the incumbents took advantage of it. I think it's more like the internet than it is like the PC era. That's what I'm saying. Well, let me ask you a question. What's the difference between a sustainable enablement and a disruptive enablement? Which is quote, we'll do some Clay Critchison. You know, that's a good, that's a good, really good point to bring up. I think the sustainable, a sustainable. Enabler. And the word enabler, you're enabling something of value. The internet is a sustainable enabler. And I think AI is going to be a sustainable enabler. Do you agree? No, I think it's going to be a disruptive enabler, which is why you see in those markets where there's disruption like the PC or even the internet, although it was net new, the functionalities defined by it's embryonic, it's early and it's not adequate. People complain about it. It's not good enough. Dial up slow, you know, and disrupt something. Like for example, and let's take the Cisco example, the TCPIP, that revolution that was enabled by the microprocessor and then ultimately that standards body of PCs and whatnot, lands, local area networks, wide area networks. TCPIP and Cisco was a disruptive enabler because more people were able to get in the game and took out the two big players. IBM, which had systems, network architecture, or SNA, and DEC, Digital Equipment Corporation, which had DECnet. These were proprietary network operating systems that were ruling corporate America and funding, powering companies like Ford. Okay, complex proprietary protocols. Sun Microsystems had a server that was proprietary, sold to companies. They were disrupted by open standards. So disruptive means someone gets out. Sustained means the big guys just sustain that going. And in the past, it's been hard for both to have both at the same time. So it has to tip one way or the other. Does it lead by sustainable or is it lead by disruption? Or is it equal? And that's going to be something that's unknown. It's unknown to me, at least that's what I want. We just had, John, we just had a whole another podcast. So I would say this, you would, I think you'd agree, that the PC, the microprocessor-based revolution was a disruptive technology. The internet was more of a sustaining technology. And I'm arguing that AI is going to be, maybe I'm making your point, for the first time in history, will be both. I think the internet was a disruptive technology because IBM and HP and Sun, and those guys didn't take advantage of the value. They rode the wave. They came on later, they came on later. No, I think you're missing it. What contribution did those guys have to the internet? IBM- They didn't build the browser. They didn't build- No, but IBM didn't disrupt them. IBM gave- They had e-commerce. It's monopoly. Remember the ATOM and AT-commerce? Yeah, but IBM gave its monopoly to Microsoft and unwittingly to Microsoft. Dave, we're going to have to save this for a rants podcast. We can just do it together and debate the history of what's disruptive. To me, at the end of the day, the scoreboard comes down to value creation. Who captures that value? The big guys or the little guys? And I think, in my view right now as I'm seeing the big guys, if they don't, if the market can't let startups come in and rule, then it's not disruptive. So- Well, nobody went out of business because of the internet. I mean, some companies did, but I'm saying the technology business, Sun didn't go out of business. They didn't go out of business, but they didn't get acquired because of the internet, right? I mean, it was just- The internet killed old functionality like going to the library because they can look it up in a browser. I don't need to go to the library to research something. Okay, that's how you- Well, again, are we talking about the broader industry or are we talking about the technology industry? It's just, in general, technology has an enablement and has impact and that impact either has value and that gets captured by somebody or not, right? So if the browser can give a value to a user, that's captured by Netscape and this basically died, but Microsoft killed them because they had a monopoly. So where I'm getting confused in this conversation is we're jumping from the narrow tech industry, which I think is hard to narrow down in 2000 and this day and age. Not narrow, Google. We have a Google, Microsoft and Amazon. They're not that's not narrow. That's those are big players. Yeah, I don't think any one of those three companies is going to get disrupted by AI. I think they're going to take advantage of AI. But at the same time, I think there's going to be another player that comes out of the woodworks that 20 years from now is going to be the next Amazon, Google or Microsoft. Yeah, and exactly. And the question is, I don't think that's, we're going to debate this another time, but we'll leave it. That's never really happened before. That I agree with, that both have a curve. Stragging the rents of the value extraction. We just took 20 minutes to agree. We argued and we finally agreed. No, you argued. Okay. All right, Dave, episode 15. If you're listening, give us feedback, DMS. Go to siliconangle.com. That's where all the videos are. The broadcast there, the stories are there. That's where all the users and traffic is. Thecube.net, that's where the video library is. That's where we can find out where the cube's going to be and get replays and check us out online. We'll be back next week. And we're going to continue this conversation, Dave. We'll carry forward the rents and the analysis and a lot going on. AWS Reinforced Big Security Conference. We got some big announcements going on in the city. There's over 44 different events happening in San Francisco next week for AI. Just goes to show you. There's so much action. And then we've got Databricks coming up this month, HPE Discover. We're going to be on the road. I'm home for two, four days this month, Dave. So we'll see you in SoCal next week. Yeah, we'll see you down in Southern California. I'm going to head up to Palo Alto with you. All right, see you next time. All right, see you. Thanks, guys.