By all accounts, the 2010s will mark the decade that cloud computing came into its own and went mainstream. But lots of questions remain, particularly around this largely untested utility computing model. As the organizational IT management and risk management disciplines and profiles transition from the physical to the virtual world, it's jump ball on security and privacy. What's more is SaaS-based applications go from small work groups to enterprise scale and mission-critical apps get virtualized. The rules of the game change dramatically. Security and privacy protections are top of mind today among CIOs and buyers of cloud services. How will the security model change? What new challenges does cloud computing and virtualization bring? Where are the pitfalls and how can they be avoided? Hello, everybody. This is Dave Vellante. Welcome to theCUBE where we extract a signal from the noise and bring you the enterprise technology leaders that are shaping cloud, mobile, and big data for the enterprise. We'll address these and other questions with our guests today, Tom Roloff, who is the COO of EMC Consulting, and Matt Allen, who is a security practice lead at EMC. Gentlemen, welcome. Good to see you, Dave. Tom, longtime CUBE alum. Welcome back. Nice to see you, Dave. It's always fun to be here. Matt, Nia Fight, Nubi. Welcome. Great to have you on here. No, but welcome anyway. So, well, let's see. You guys have some news. Why don't we start there? Matt, what are you guys announcing in this whole security and trusted cloud virtualization privacy area? Sure. We're introducing several different offers that come as a portfolio of services provided by our security and risk management group. Within that offer set is really what I would call five primary services. There's one overarching service that I would refer to as governance, risk, and compliance, or a series of governance, risk, and compliance oriented services. Underlying that are, among other things, the information governance services, mobile device advisory services, fraud and identity management, and then trusted cloud advisory from a broader security and privacy perspective. So this is new to the EMC Consulting practice or an enhancement to that, Tom? So I think EMC Consulting has long been interested in cloud and big data and trust, frankly, and we have had a number of, I'd call them more point solutions in this space, but Matt has been a lot of time, both with his team and also with our RSA group, to say there's some broader issues here that we need to be framing differently. So by launching a set of services that are, I think, much more comprehensive, we may be able to bring both an overarching perspective on governance, risk, and compliance in the cloud and in the age of big data, and also some more specific services around things like mobile or things like trusted cloud and some of the other things that Matt was referring to. So we've enhanced the services we have and really targeted them at both an overarching GRC conversation and then some of the things that we see going on in our clients, IT organizations today around trusted cloud, mobile devices, information governance and so on. So, Tom, you're one of EMC's go-to guys when CIOs are involved, you talk to a lot of CIOs. What are they telling you about security these days? Yeah, so that's behind some of these offerings, frankly, right? I think CIOs are saying a couple things to us, they're saying, hey, this big data age is really coming upon us, right? So not only is information doubling about every 18 months, but the kinds of information that I'm having to manage is now very different. It's a highly unstructured set of information. It's not just the thing sitting in my relational databases anymore. It's the nature of that data is changing significantly. And so I've got to make sure I understand how to manage that differently. So that's one trend. I think the second is the regulatory scrutiny going on in IT right now is just huge and so everything's got to be documented and everything's got to be retained for very long periods of time.  And finally, I think we see the third part of this, which is the proliferation of access devices, right? It used to be that if we secure the perimeter of our data center, well, then we can have some piece on the belief that we've secured our information. But now we can access data in so many different ways from so many different places that securing the perimeter is a problem that frankly I think we've lost that battle and we have to think about different ways to secure information. So CAOs are asking us, information's exploding. I got to make sure I'm compliant. And I'm trying to access it from all kinds of different places. And can you EMC Consulting help? And this is probably a response to that. So I want to come back to what EMC Consulting can do to help. But before we do that, Matt, this is interesting what Tom's saying about securing the perimeter. I think of the castle in the moat. And sometimes the queen wants to leave her castle. And so in this physical world, you know what's port is connected to what drive is connected to what server. And it's all sort of known. In the virtual world, it's just one big massive stuff. So can you take certain aspects of traditional security in the physical world and apply them to virtual? If so, which ones and what is different about cloud and virtualization? Sure, the answer is yes, you can. And I think Tom engine's a great point that just the massive explosion of data and the requirements that different organizations have as a result of that explosion. The changing security requirements sort of drives that. So what I would say is what we found in the backdrop to some of Tom's points is that most organizations or most of our customers and clients in the broader marketplace are viewing the need to marry the broader risk framework or the control framework associated with security into more of a corporate view. So said in fairly tactical terms, security is now a risk in many different angles and many different parts that's much greater, much bigger in dollar terms and much more likely than I think anyone really understood until now. With that, we see a series of very significant risks to any organization and the need for a control framework to manage those risks or those very specific security items. So kind of to your reference point, the queen leaving it certainly can leave with the right permission and the right framework and the right controls and guards and policies and procedures around her as long as it's done. I just add on that, I think one of the things we used to say, you said what's the same and what's different, we used to think that if we built a big enough moat we could sort of keep everything inside or we could at least make sure we know what's going across the drawbridge. Now I think we're starting to say, hey, man, there's too many broad drawbridges, there's too many ways in and out of the castle. And so we have to make sure that we understand the information itself and that we're securing and tagging and managing the information at its source and putting the metadata, putting the policies and controls at the level of the information element rather than at the level of the drawbridge. And so I think some of the things that we're talking about from a control framework perspective, those things apply from the physical world as well. But I think what's new is we got to not worry about the moat, we got to worry about the data itself and how to secure that. So our executives, let's break it down, are IT executives ready for this and are the sort of C-suite executives ready for this? You know, I might have got some interesting perspectives on this, but I will tell you that there are a number of people in the IT and the security organization to understand the problem. They are having to go educate the business executives and the C-suite executives around the risks that now exist. And frankly, that's a very complicated conversation, right? Because it is, you know, Matt and I joke about this frequently, right? The time that the business side figures out that risk and security and trust is important is sort of after they've had the breach, right? That's when they realize that there is a vulnerability and a risk to their information that they didn't think about before. It is partly our job, I think, and partly our mission, to go keep people from having those breaches to begin with. And some of what we in EBSI Consulting are trying to do with Matt and his practice is to get people healthy and get people to be managing and aware of their risks before they become the breaches that you'll read around the newspaper. You've got some more perspectives on that, Matt. One of the things that I guess, you know, specifically answering part of your question, the point, there is still a difference between the way, I think, parts of the organization communicate about the significance of the risks from a security perspective that leaves a lot of open questions for any organization. Said in really specific terms, what we find is the significance, the breadth and depth of the risks that any organization is exposed to from a security perspective, both logical or physical as it relates to infrastructure, are now so acute and so large and frankly are the cover of the Wall Street Journal variety, they're not the type of risk that anyone would want to take lightly, but the ability to communicate about the nature of those risks, what they mean, how one manages them, what you do to proactively prevent them, the way that's communicated within senior leadership groups I think still has a little bit to be desired and I think it's frankly one of the places that we see ourselves being able to help our clients and customers in a pretty comprehensive way understand how to communicate those messages from a very tactical, technical specific kind of topic matter to broader business terms that a chairman of the board or a board of directors and a senior leadership team would want to hear and at the same time understand what the exposure would mean to the organization and then how you deal with any number of other disclosure requirements as a result of understanding that information. So people in your world, the consultant world, let's say prior to the big cloud push might have gone in and started with the baseline, where are we at, let's do an audit, let's figure out the physical and the logical and let's break, let's do it by all the stovepipes that we have in our organization, the network, the storage, the servers, et cetera. Talk about, and I know this is new, new services, how do you expect that to change in terms of the services that you provide? This probably, obviously you got to do some baselining, where are we at, but how much of what you're doing is sort of trying to balance the portfolio and coming up with strategies for security. For me, especially as it relates to the way we've talked about this, I think the big change over the course of the last few years anyway, has been the idea that information and data has transitioned from some version of commodity to asset, and depending on the organization, extremely valuable asset, one that needs to sort of be protected at all costs, all the risks have to be dealt with and managed in a proactive fashion with broader control frameworks that are a part of any good security posture going forward, so that's sort of the baseline. You've got to think about that transition and what it means going forward. I think you could also make the case that as you roll that out, security as we know it now will continue to evolve into a formal function within every organization, designed to protect that asset, just as you would protect any physical asset that we currently have. The problem is, here before we've sort of thought about physical assets and physical asset terms, it's a piece of property and we have security guards protecting it at a physical level. In this instance, data's a little more temporal, information's a little more esoteric and at some level that asset needs to be sized and scoped and the extent of the exposure associated with it becomes the basis for the security posture. This opens up a whole interesting discussion that is data and asset or reliability, yes. And you've got this yin and yang, tugging at each other. The more you treat it as a risk, the more you handcuff your business lines. Is that a part of what you guys expect to be sorting out with CIAs? I think we definitely spend a lot of time helping clients think about what are the information assets they have and frankly, where are they? And you were bringing up before the physical world and the virtual world, right? Not only is the virtual world change things about where the information is when it's inside the four walls of the enterprise, but increasingly a lot of the information is actually beyond the four walls of the enterprise, right? I'm using salesforce.com for my sales pipeline. Well, now I've moved a lot of information that is specific to my company to a public cloud, to a software as a service provider, right? That's an additional set of assets that I now have to manage that are beyond the four walls of my enterprise. But by the way, I'm still a regulated company and I'm still accountable for the compliance of the information that is sitting in somebody else's virtual cloud architecture and making sure that I'm managing that correctly, right? So I think we do spend a lot of time helping clients think about what is the information they have today? How does that tie to the policies by which they wanna govern those assets? How does that affect, how is that affected by the regulatory environment that that enterprise is subjected to? And frankly, what decisions should they be making about how to govern those assets and how to at least understand and mitigate the risks that might exist around those assets? So this is complicated, right? Because you've now got the whole sourcing issue and maybe the four cloud you had EDI and then, okay, fine. But now I've got, let's say I got Salesforce and maybe I got Amazon, maybe I have an enterprise cloud service provider. They might have all different policies. I mean, where does compliance fit in and how does that relate to the organizational challenges that you can see? It's a huge issue, right? I think it's one of those C-suite issues, right? And unfortunately, it's one of those C-suite issues that is there, but I think senior executives are hoping somebody has it covered only to find when a breach happens that it isn't covered, right? And so I think one of the things that all the press about this is actually making people realize is they gotta get much more proactive about governance, risk, and compliance of information assets. They have to get much more of an understanding about what are their information assets today, where are they, how are they securing them and what vulnerabilities exist and how would they mitigate those? And I think that's, you know, I think the whole compliance and regulatory world is very much making people uneasy about what they know about their information today. I don't know Matt, what you wanna add to that? This is, I think it's sort of an important notice that relates to the way we've set the practices, the services up under the broader banner of GRC, governance, risk, and compliance. This is something that, from my perspective, almost everybody in the marketplace is struggling with. How do we marry some fairly disparate concepts under the guise of risk, compliance, and ongoing, what I would call ongoing systemic alignment with controls in a way that we, to this point, haven't or haven't had to? And that's sort of an important note. If we've got nothing out of sort of the economic meltdown over the course of the last few years and all of the kind of the rockiness of the market is a very clear difference in the demands of the broader marketplace. In understanding the extent of the risks and or compliance requirements of the companies that they're either investing in or are somehow a stakeholder in, said in really practical terms, I think we're all asking a lot of very different questions now about the companies that we have a vested interest in than we ever did before. Under this comes the kind of the broader banner of GRC, or governance, risk, and compliance, and providing every organization with an ability to answer those questions from a single platform that, as I said in the beginning, have here to fore been sort of disparately aligned in different functions are buried in different parts of the organization, the backbone of all of that is literally data and information without beating that to death. The idea that that asset drives that GRC platform is no mistake, it's clear, and that's the big change for everybody. It gets you away from this tactical response to security questions and into a broader systemic management of risk. How do you deal with the, or how do you see companies dealing with this sort of lowest common denominator problem? In other words, you do the gap analysis before and you do the risk and reward and you say, okay, we can live with that. But now you've got all these external suppliers. They might define breaches differently. They might have different policies that may not let you come and audit them. So do you revert to like a caravan to the slowest truck in the caravan? Or do you see clients actually being able to affect the policies of service providers? How is that whole thing shaking out? So I mean, I think it's a very interesting question you're asking, right? So what we do when we advise clients, we spend a lot of time, as you and I have talked about before, about public clouds and private clouds and hyper clouds, right? How do you decide what workloads belong in the private cloud? What should you move to the public cloud? How do you interconnect those things? One of the things we spend a lot of time with clients on is saying, hey, the things you move to that public cloud environment, you need to know a lot more about the public cloud than just the functionality of the service you're gonna get, just the economics of what you're looking at. You actually need to understand the service level and the risk profile that you're comfortable with in that service provider. And so asking for service level agreements around availability and uptime and so on is one part of it, but asking for service level agreements around the security side of the equation an increasingly important part in my opinion of clients making decisions to move things to public clouds. Now, frankly, I think there's a lot of fear and certainty and doubt about how secure the public cloud is. I think it can be very secure, but I think it's up to clients to start demanding that public cloud providers demonstrate and prove how secure they are. And I think that's one thing that we're certainly encouraging our clients who are thinking about the public cloud to ask themselves, what has to be true of that public cloud environment before you should entrust it with data that frankly you have policies and regulations and obligations to manage in a certain way. Do you think that security can be a differentiator for a public cloud? It's sort of an obvious question, but is it becoming a differentiator for public cloud environments? Do you have enough data and knowledge to discern? I mean, Amazon versus maybe, let's say an enterprise class, yeah, sure, but is it more nuanced than that? I think larger enterprises are more willing to go put a price tag on that, frankly, right? So will you pay me X for my public cloud service and X plus something for my secure public cloud service? Value-based security price. I think frankly we need to do as an industry a better job of educating people about the value of the additional security. Now, clients will see the downside of it when they have a breach and at that point they're like, man, I should have paid that X plus something price, right? But then it's too late. And so I think one of the things that we're constantly talking to clients about is don't have the heart attack before you realize you got to get on, you know, on a training regimen basically, right? Do you feel like in this world of virtualization and cloud and hybrid cloud and public cloud and private cloud that security is in a large part a do-over? I sort of, I guess the way I would say it is for me, having been within the industry for maybe too long now, I feel like there's a little bit of a refresh every five years, almost without fail. And it's the nature of the changes in the broader marketplace for enabling technologies. With those changes comes changes in the requirements associated with security and the standards that are applied for any organization. So the quick answer is yes. It really is a function though of I think the breakneck pace of change that we all undergo when you start talking about infrastructure components and requirements and the way the technology changes, how or rather the implications to a security posture that those changes impose. It's important that everybody's ahead of that curve and it's in every five year cycle easily. You know, I would add maybe that we've treated security as something that we set up a security operation and we hired a chief security officer and check we've got that managed, right? But I don't think that information risk is like that anymore. I think that information is becoming a much more important, much more, both an asset and a liability. And we need to more systemically embed security into the way we do things in IT and in the business. And in that sense, it is a do-over, right? In that sense, it is not something that an outside group can just go manage and make sure you've got covered. It is something that your entire IT organization and frankly the business side of the house has to understand much more deeply. And that's not the mentality that exists yet around information risk management. So it's a mindset do-over at least. Do you think that, so everybody talked about cloud security and how risky it is, but I happen to be of the opinion, especially as a small business person, that the public cloud security for certain public cloud providers is way better than I could provide myself and that's probably true for the vast majority of enterprises, you know, maybe not for B of A. But for a lot of small besides businesses, my question is generally can cloud security be better and what are the attributes that could make it better? I think the short answer is yes, it can be better. I think the way you wanna think about what is it that makes it better is clearly defined attributes associated with security. What are the fundamental components of having a secure environment? What does that mean? And that's unfortunately a combination of both best practices, so different ISO standards and or broader industry marketplace best practices that will find themselves sort of in the de facto best practices framework that everybody adheres to at one level or another. But I think the thing that's missed almost every time in that conversation is the need to have a security posture and set of requirements no matter what your environment that are unique to your organization and conform to your needs from the way you use data and or transport your asset or you house it or you manage it, all of your unique business requirements are incorporated in that set of best practices and the requirements that you have from a security posture going forward. So let's talk a little bit about EMC, why EMC consulting? I mean, it's a relatively new entity. I mean, a lot of internal stuff and some acquisitions. Why EMC? I think some of what's driving the need for another look at security is some of disruptions that EMC and frankly EMC consulting is very concerned about, right? One of them is the change to cloud computing and with it the mindset shift and the relook at how we're securing information, not just within our own enterprise, right? Which is now becoming highly disaggregated but also across our existing enterprise and the public cloud providers or the partners that we're looking at, right? So because EMC consulting is very much central to helping clients understand how to leverage the cloud in the right way, I think we owe it to our clients to give them a sense for how to security in that environment become an increasingly important thing for them to think about. So one is the disruption from the cloud side of the equation. Another in my opinion is that, you know, EMC talks frequently about the big data story and about the fact that not only is information exploding but the kinds of information that we're being asked to manage, the unstructured big data nature of information that we're now having to manage. That's another trend that EMC is very focused on and frankly EMC consulting is very focused on helping clients understand. So the convergence of a cloud architecture change, a rapid acceleration of data in the big data world means that security becomes a central component to both of those changes. And frankly we have believed very strongly that we can't answer the question around cloud adequately without having a strong opinion about security. We can't answer the question about big data and the explosion of information without coming up with a better answer for how that security and risk management of that data asset needs to be managed. So it's a central part of what we as a company at EMC do and frankly what we at the EMC consulting do. You see it as a compulsory capability to enable growth and adoption. Very much so, sure. And I'll add, I mean, the RSA division of EMC is I think a world class organization when it comes to securing information, right? So we're very keenly aware of the leading edge technologies that are being developed right now. They're being developed by EMC and the RSA division of EMC. And so having that tight connection to the RSA side of the house, I think gives us some insights into what is technologically feasible. In VMware, I mean, you're at the heart of it. You bet. Virtualization, obviously cloud big data, data-centric RSA. I mean, sort of why wouldn't you be in the middle of the storm? Negative, will you agree? Yeah. All right, good. It might be useful, Matt, maybe this is a question for you. Can you go through an example, either a real one or a hypothetical one, scrub the names of how you guys would actually deploy and what problems you'd solve? Sure. I think with increasing frequency, what we're seeing from certainly a segment of the marketplace is an acute interest in understanding how to systemically approach security from a broader strategy perspective. Very specifically, how do we set up an environment that gives us the ability to frame up security engineering requirements, security architecture, internal audit requirements, external audit requirements, and do this in a way that maps to our business processes one and to our control framework in a way that gives us the ability to manage the security posture in a way that's consistent with business requirements. So there's sort of a lot of technical ins and outs associated with that, but in practical terms, we're on a pretty regular basis now getting calls sort of after the fact that Tom talked about a little bit. And what we're seeing is, as I kind of referenced earlier, kind of a big gap between the technical infrastructure group at one level or another charged with dealing with security matters or measures at one level or another and the business leaders and their ability to communicate and understand how to prioritize all the risks associated with security, what's required from a broader infrastructure perspective in base security terms and what the costs and benefits are of that going forward. So sort of in really practical terms, very common to get calls from customers or clients who've experienced a significant breach at one level or another or some fall down in security requirements or security perimeters and not understand what to do to react or how to react and what the next very specific tactical steps are. This is a part that I think is missed. The importance of this is missed by sort of the broader marketplace until you're in the throes of that problem. Very specifically, there's a lot of legal requirements, disclosure requirements, compliance requirements associated with what one does once an event has happened. And us helping or what we typically do is help our clients understand what that broader framework is, escalation policies and procedures, literally the processes and tasks and activities that one engages in to manage the security environment. And there's even a, there's another complexity that I just want to put out there and get your feedback on this. You talked about business processes. Tom, we've talked about the application portfolio before. So you've got the applications supporting the business processes and that's sort of the link to the IT infrastructure. A lot of times application portfolios are not well documented or they're just this boil the ocean spreadsheet. Business processes often aren't well documented. People don't understand the dependencies and they don't understand the data flows. Can you help? And number one and number two is can you eventually teach me how to fish? So I don't have to call back every time. Sure, and the short answer is that's one of the objectives behind our engagements, typically is helping our clients understand or our customers understand what's required of them going forward, how to literally implement the framework and then manage it going forward. Where we typically from a kind of a broader engagement life cycle perspective find ourselves acting as subject matter experts, as time goes on after we've gone in and implemented that security posture and ongoing framework management. Yeah, I mean, just if you look at the five services we announced, right? So one of them is around fraud detection, right? So often in the web, in the online world, right? Somebody has some kind of an online breach coming in and unfortunately we get the call after they've noticed that there's been an online breach of some kind, right? So the fraud detection has already happened. Now we gotta get to the point where we can help you prevent that going forward, right? So our approach there might be to say here's maybe what happened, here are the architectural things you could do to prevent that in the future. And by the way, here are the kinds of things you need to start monitoring on a regular basis because the threats are evolving and you need to be looking out for much more than you're looking out for today. So we seek to try to educate you, not about here's the latest worm that's been released and that you gotta look out for their signature, but rather hear the kinds of policies and the kind of procedures and the kinds of gaps that you have that you need to go address more proactively. And we hope that when we have helped you to understand how to do that once that you're building the muscle to kind of continue to do that going forward. We may leave some technologies behind and some tools behind that let you do that, but our hope is there that that's not an event that that becomes muscle that you're building in this regard. So my last question, you guys are big on journeys, right? So this is sort of the beginning of a new journey. Where do you see this going in the next several years? What's this whole business gonna look like? You know, I think if we are successful this becomes a pervasive part about how you think about information, right? So just as the cloud is a way to architect your information infrastructure and application portfolio differently, to us, security and risk management is a way to think about the asset and liability side of information differently. It's the kind of thing that cannot be ignored as information starts to leave the physical confines of a data center, as you start leveraging public, private and hybrid clouds, as you start virtualizing in the world of big data, right? It has to be an integral part of the way you think about information. So if we're successful, we'll help clients think about their data and their information with a lens to security, with a lens to how to secure that information in the right way. And that won't be a firewall and an intrusion detection strategy. That'll be an information management strategy that includes the governance, risk and compliance of information. So we're here at Wikibon headquarters. This is Dave Vellante. I'm with Tom Roloff and Matt Allen. We're talking about security, EMC, identifying what I've always said is a major barrier to adoption. It's the tip of the spear, EMC consulting, coming in and actually facilitating new services that will assist with cloud security and virtualization security. And it's something that I think that you guys have to step up to. You're well aware. You talk to clients every day and they're I'm sure pounding on you to help solve this problem. So congratulations on taking it head on and good luck with the services. Thank you. Thanks for coming into theCUBE. All right, everybody. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time.


Thank you. We'll each give you a little bit of a brief introduction We'll talk a little bit about the history of super metrics as a bootstrap company and then the decision to raise venture capital You heard pretty much what you needed to know about me. I'll just calibrate on two things So you understand the perspective I'm bringing in the last 12 years I've funded about 80 companies as a seed investor on now a series A and B investor for NEA NEA is about a 20 billion dollar fund one of the largest in the world About a thousand portfolio companies about 225 of which have gotten public the companies that I invested in I helped raise their series A and That process has really helped me to understand sort of what can and cannot help a company that's considering raising venture capital Quick introduction from you. Yes. So nine years ago I used to work at a gaming company here in Finland called Sulake At the marketing department and I was struggling with getting all this marketing data together I was spending a large part of my time actually copy-pasting numbers into Excel and then I saw this guy a Google guy saying that the first guy to automate that gets this t-shirt and I figured that I'm not a developer But that can't be too difficult. So I automated that process that they're at that company and it was Turned out really well at that company. So I figured there's gotta be a business opportunity With the same idea. So I left the company and I founded a business based on that idea and now we are one of the fastest growing startups here in Finland with a global client base of over 10,000 companies Excellent and Mikael and I met because an entrepreneur I had funded now works for him. It seems like an excellent place to work So just two quick questions to understand a little bit. Could people please tell me by raise of hands how many founders are in the room? Great. I'm also one and people that are investors Okay, dominantly Founders so secondly, how many people here believe they know the reality of venture economics? That's a very small number. So I'm gonna spend a moment on that because I think it's very important to understanding the decision You make when you consider fundraising The way venture capital works in its most simplest form is that investors LPs give us money to go out and invest in companies When we invest in those companies, we are compensated if we return more money than the investors gave us So any a currently the current fund is three point three billion dollars as soon as we've delivered back 3.3 billion dollars to our LPs The next dollar we get to take part in the profits of and that's important to understand because until you return that fund You're not making any material amount of personal wealth for yourself and your partners So when you look at venture capital and you think about whether you might be a fit for them understand that any business They invest in Has to have the opportunity to be material to that fund if you're at a smaller fund call it a $500 million fund. It's likely that a top partner will want to believe that any company They invest in could return the entire fund if it works out And if you think about that math a venture capitalist will own typically 20 to 30 percent of a company So if you have as an example a $500 million outcome, which is certainly a material outcome The venture capital firm would receive a hundred million dollars And if they have five hundred million dollars to return to their partners as a question whether or not that is material yet So the number one thing I'd encourage you to think about The size of fund and the goals they have have to be aligned with your own goals and desires as an entrepreneur And we'll we'll talk about that a bit later So you spent a bunch of time bootstrapping you then decided to raise around Why don't you sort of take us through the experience of bootstrapping and then talk a little bit about why you made the decision to raise Capital right so when I first started the company. I had I had no experience in Running a business or starting a business and I had actually no idea how to how to run a business I was not active in a startup circles So I actually thought that to run a business you need to make a profit to keep the business afloat and Only later did I learn that actually? Most startups don't operate that way But they constantly make a loss and then they try to find funding to cover that loss And that's also when I learned the term bootstrapping and that I was doing that And when I learned that that I figured that actually it's it's pretty good Good approach to do this bootstrapping because then you can focus fully on what's most important building a great product and Ensuring that you can monetize that product because you need to get the money to keep the company running You don't have external funding to rely on There are many startups. I think they are Spending a lot of time trying to secure this in investments and that is a distraction from the most important thing Which is building the great product? So you bootstrapped for how long before you decide to raise capital? originally since I started this as a site project in 2010 I Run this as a side project for three years and after that From 2013 to last year so four years as a real company I bootstrapped and last year then we raised that 3.5 million round from open ocean capital And when you raise that round and I'll also sort of along the way sort of maybe give you the inside Mind of how I would have thought about things at different stages because you know It gives her a perspective how venture might think what did the company look like when you went out to raise and sort of both How did that appeal and why did it convince you that that extra capital venture could bring was important? So right so I was Committed to this bootstrapping. I was not gonna raise money. I was sure I'm not gonna raise raise money But two years ago. I participated in the pitching competition here just to gain some visibility for the company to help in our recruitment Our marketing guy said that would be a good idea And after that pitching competition a lot of investors started contacting us and said that they would like to invest and You know I had meetings with them and some of them convinced me that there is value that they can add to us Like even though we have a profitable company that we didn't really need the investment for financial reasons There are other reasons to take an investment and they That they can help us grow the company much faster than than we could own our own At the time we had a Small team. I think when we started the discussions with the VCs we had just seven people in the team Quite an inexperienced team myself. I'm of course a first-time founder So I think we really needed some Strong advisors on the background to help us help us grow to the next level Yeah, just comment on a couple of things you said in terms of how on the venture capital side I Would think about the opportunity and also things that entrepreneurs might want to consider you know the most The strongest possible situation you can be in as a founder is to not have to raise But to be able to get advantage from doing so, you know the sort of most competitive rounds tend to be the ones where The venture capitalist is selling the value they can create and the entrepreneur has their choice and in a perfect world They don't need the money except to accelerate The reality of venture is that because you need these sort of outsized returns It's often easier to invest post-momentum, you know once the company is sort of off the ground and running towards towards the sky And so you tend to look for a couple things, you know venture loves velocity It loves speed of growth and it really dislikes friction So maybe just talk about it took you a little longer than some because you bootstrapped You know oftentimes people equate the longer it takes to reach a certain milestone The harder it becomes to raise capital What were sort of some of the key metrics revenue-wise or otherwise when you went out to raise? so at the time we were growing at around 100% year-on-year so healthy growth rate, but not super high But I think what made us really interesting to the VCs was that we also had a 60% profit margin So it was really profitable business and we already had a huge client base across the world with companies like uber and alibaba and Dyson and like really big companies that we had gotten without a sales team So just with inbound leads so clearly we had a very good product and with these big companies Being clients of us at a very low price point I think any investor can see that there is a lot of room to grow these clients into some something much higher So it was not just about the numbers, but I think The opportunity with the client base we already had and how clear it was that the product Has a big market So it's also something that's always fascinating that I've looked at a lot And I think entrepreneurs sort of see from the outside as they'll they'll see companies getting funded and they'll they'll either be surprised or considered obvious I've seen rounds get funded at all types of revenue it almost always though and has embedded in at a relatively aggressive growth rate you know the Growth of the company and sort of the exiting ARR is usually critically important Because if it's a particularly for a later-stage round you're raising an S and sort of a small series a You know when you go into sort of a series B It's sort of the model of fuel on the fire You know this is where you've figured out the market You know how you're going to sell it and that extra money when it gets applied is going to be sort of repeating what you've already Done there's different types of rounds There's if you think about this every round is about the next round the seed round that one raises and Speak up if you feel differently here. The seed round allows you to prove a thesis It doesn't allow you to build a business whether you're bootstrapping or raising seed capital You're proving that what you want to offer the world is valuable to the world and that they want to buy that When you prove that thesis adequately That's what's going to allow you to raise a series a and a series a is going to allow you to really start to build That business you take that thesis that was in the lab you take it into the real world and you start repeating it a Series B is now almost exclusively fuel on the fire It's working you grow the sales force and you just multiply the numbers out So what stage you are in as a company is very important to sort of the size and the purpose of the capital? But you're not just getting capital in a perfect world while I will never pretend that that the venture capitalist is as important As the entrepreneur I was an entrepreneur for 25 years I use I used to be quizzical about how anybody that was an entrepreneur could become a VC and I've learned that people that Weren't entrepreneurs can be very very good VCs. They can add an enormous sort of value But 99. Some percentage of the time the entrepreneurs doing all the work So the venture capitalist wants to show value beyond capital and they talked to you about that a lot Maybe talk a bit about what value beyond the capital has your venture firm brought to you And what has the capital allowed you to do either differently or in as an accelerant that's been material And whether that was a positive all in Yes, so there like I said, we had a rather inexperienced team when we raised the money And I think all the advice that open ocean has been able to give us has been really really helpful for us to grow the business And we have since raising these investment managed to grow the team Much more much faster pace and we've also gotten the revenue growth rates at a much much higher trajectory So there's the advice there's the help in recruitment. So they have helped us in a several key recruitments bringing our CTO for example to the team are really really important hire and Also, I think just raising the investment It gives you some credibility I think that you have managed to raise the investment so even if you have a very profitable company It's just having some like open ocean backing it up. I think that helps in both sales and recruitment and Especially here in Finland. I guess it's the same in Silicon Valley If you want to get some media visibility you kind of have to raise funding because you know if you if a startup makes a million in profit That's that's not interesting. But if you raise, you know, 200k investment, that's a big news So I think that's just how it works somehow. So when we raise the investment That was the first time we act the media actually noticed that we are we exist Yeah, there's I've and by the way, please feel free to send in questions This topic is somewhat broad and we're talking about the lens of one person's experience But you know, you could argue there's many different versions of that. So happy to address them for either of us. We've got two One of the things I've noticed pretty consistently We funded a company at NEA here in Europe called go euro and I was in Berlin before I came to this event And somebody came up to me and said I want you know The reason I took that job was because you funded the company not I personally but any a and he said that gave even though The company was doing quite well. We funded I think believe in the series B Seeing that they had brought in tier one venture capital gave them a new level of confidence So assumedly you can you said this a bit and maybe we can speak to it a bit more but raising institutional capital can give you another level of certainly media exposure and Credibility every place is different. You know my understanding is Finland has a slightly more conservative view of sort of why I get paid in Two years are you gonna be there for me? When I was running my startup that I took public in New York It was the same thing you had to recruit people that most of them were most of my engineers were Russian living in New York Outside of New York and they wanted to make sure they had a job long term Having that capital is a great Endorsement have you found it being material? I mean it I hear great things about you as a place to work But does it become easier to hire because of the funding? Yeah, definitely. So there's both the direct help they give it through their networks finding good people for us And then the indirect help we get through the media exposure and having that credibility of having having them as backers That's another important thing. I think venture firms at least the United States Have started to really focus a lot of additional resources into what are often called portfolio services So as an example at NEA we have multiple people that help with recruiting, you know Their job is to go out constantly. In fact, they're gone so much I almost never see them because they're constantly looking for top talent that they can introduce to our entrepreneurs I've got a PR team that helps in that way You know our entrepreneurs will sometimes call and ask to spend time with the legal team There's been a lot of movement towards trying to create more value one of the things I've found interesting is that You know an entrepreneur can spend six nine months sometimes 12 months getting to the right person in the right organization So one of the things I've spent a lot of time on that NEA does quite a bit of is to find the right people inside a large Organization so we can help you get to that person right away They may or may not buy your product But you get that access that saves you an enormous amount of time and the currency of being a venture capitalist is an interesting one Because you can get pretty interesting meetings. Have you found that the connections on to potential partners? Customers has been valuable from your VCs. Yes, definitely. So we have Got a good sales meetings through them To big media agencies advertising agencies that's been really helpful and also a bit partner companies such as Microsoft Facebook Google they have been a they have white networks and they can really help so when we When I decided that I'm gonna Go raise our investment. I I decided to go with a Finnish VC because they are close by and we can work really closely with them Because I mostly raised for the advice that they can give to us But I also wanted someone that has white networks outside Finland And I think open ocean was pretty perfect for that because they are very well networked in Both Europe and the US Okay, we've got half a dozen questions The first one is if you have a one and a half million dollar contract I assume that means the annual volume with a 50% in ARR and the rest in on our read you bootstrap or focus on Operations and raise your a-round.  I'm gonna bake into this answer And I'll answer some very specifically. I'll throw you some as well NRE is a relatively dangerous thing for venture-backed startups in that there are very few exceptions of where Venture capitalists will fund what I would turn my body shop where in order for you to grow You have to just add headcount over and over and over again you know the optimal situation is when you see repeatable revenue very high margins and Not having to do NRE to get to it now in fairness often you have to do NRE early on But the quicker you can get to productizing the business the better if you are growing a consulting shop Wouldn't occur to me that's a venture viable business Palantir is probably the one exception I can think of and there's an exception to disprove every rule The second point thing I'd point out is this million and a half dollar Revenue run rate in this case it might be a single contract if it's a single contract you have absolute concentration risk I've had a company. I took out to help raise. I thought they were doing phenomenally well Their growth was great. I took it to a VC when I was a seed investor and he said it's all great They have two clients. I can't do that. I have to wait till they've broadened it So you know you have to get you Anybody can get one phenomenal contract could be your brother could be luck Showing that it's repeatable and showing you get a variety of types of customers is pretty important The other point I'll make is that it used to be if you go back sort of three or four years ago If you were in a at least in the United States in a SaaS business and you could get to about a million dollars of revenue Run rate in a year you'd have a lot of people pay attention and fund that series a today I would argue that number has gone up significantly Three is better five is better than that so the bar and again I'm talking about US venture capital that might be different here is getting higher and higher and higher There is no amount that's too much But the exit velocity is also important if you took three years to get to four million dollars in revenue That's very different than if you took 18 months All right, you get to get a question. Did you get the t-shirt and do you still have it? I Hope I still have the I'm not sure I may have thrown in a way excellent. It's a valuable souvenir I started a public company on a napkin and I just realized the other day I don't think I have that napkin which makes me sort of sad The company is having a critical castle issue VCs willing to help but ask for veto rights as they believe they know What's best will you accept the offer? That is a hard one So the company I took public never raised venture capital If I had raised venture capital, I would have been fired and our company would have gone bankrupt Instead I was able to take it private and it was a great outcome for myself and everybody else involved But only because I had control and was willing Not to do what they asked me to do my board my board were not professional venture capitalists or investors and therefore they were More challenging to work with professional investors are pretty straightforward. They have specific expertise from their background You know, you you want to think about where you're getting advice from are you getting it from somebody's experience? That's highly valuable. Are you getting it from their opinion? That's highly questionable. Are you getting it from some hearsay? That's dangerous to you But the point here on veto rights I've never seen a US venture around done at series A or beyond where you didn't have veto rights in terms of a sale of the company or a future fundraising and the reason for this and This is sort of super critical. I'm gonna tell one really quick story I met two women who had started a fascinating business that I liked a lot I didn't think it was venture scale and I suggested that they consider not raising venture capital about six months later I ran into them and they said they had actually gotten a term sheet for eight million dollars and What did I think my response was I think you should talk to the VC and find out what they believe success would be Because I thought that business would get bought and I told them this that they would probably have the opportunity to sell That business for twenty million dollars sometimes in the next two to three years because it was particularly interesting at that moment in time There are a lot of buyers They took the money eight million dollars and two years later I was working out with the guy that funded them and I asked how it had gone and he said it was a disaster It was a disaster because they had been offered twenty million dollars for the company They wanted to take it and he had absolutely no interest in doing that and his response to them was what do you think? I'm in this for and So he had two choices at that point He could fire the entrepreneur these were his words I could fire the entrepreneur replace them with somebody that could build me a bigger business or I could just let it go He chose to let it go in the following way. He said to the entrepreneur I will let you sell I will support you if you get the following we get paid first a hundred percent cash No holdbacks no escrow and no warrants or representations and how many people here have done M&A deals None of those things are normal The price that was bid went from 20 to 10 Eight went to the venture capitalist two went to the seed investors. The entrepreneurs made nothing and they got jobs What was success to those entrepreneurs was that 20 million dollar offer until they took that venture money? That entrepreneur Needed something different than the VC needed and they didn't make that clear in the beginning and that VC did have veto rights Which are quite standard So I think the question is less about or the answer is less about you let them have veto rights and more about Is your investor no matter what type of investor you have aligned with what you need to be there's something inside you that you need to be That's what you care for If you come to me and you say I want to be you know a multi-billion dollar public company And we spend the next seven to ten years working on that and one day you show up and say but instead I've changed my mind I want to sell for a hundred million dollars That's not gonna work out. Well, but we should both be very clear with each other in the beginning what that means So I think that's actually probably the most important thing. Anybody here should remember. We're down to 20 seconds So unless you differ with that and you want to say the world's different. I agree with that So thank you everybody for coming and feel free to find me I wear these plaid pants So it would be easy if you want to ask more or if you want to pitch me your business because that's what I'm here to hear about Thank you


The most important things that U.S. Southcom takes on board are countering threat networks. Those are threat networks that may be engaged in criminal activities, terrorist activities, or everything in between. After that, I would probably have to say our ability to respond to a humanitarian crisis. Floods, earthquakes, all manner of natural disasters, we need to be able to respond very, very rapidly. Lastly, it's dealing with countries that are engaged in a competition for influence within our region. Most notably, Russia, China, and Iran, very actively engaged in our part of the world, and it's something that we focus on. We have partners in this part of the world that are very capable, very well trained, they have good equipment. We have been working with them on a number of areas as we all collectively attempt to develop a force that is prepared to deal with the security challenges of the 21st century.


But when you're communicating with other people, it's not just what you say, but how you say it, of course, that conveys meaning. We had people communicating either with their voice, talking, or typing to the other person. And typing is, when we type to each other, a lot is missed, okay? So we had them communicating sincere or sarcastic statements. You knew as a sender that they were sincere or sarcastic. We had our senders predict how many of the recipients would be able to guess correctly out of these 20, how many are sincere and how many are sarcastic. We also had the recipients then tell us of these 20, which are sincere and which are sarcastic. Now, in the abstract, it's not going to be a surprise that in this experiment, people could actually detect sarcasm better when you could hear what they had to say than when you couldn't, right? So when you can hear what they had to say, they get about 75% of them right. They still miss quite a few, but better than chance. But when they were just typing to each other over email, they were barely better than chance. They got 56% right, okay? So that's kind of not a surprise in the abstract that we can interpret things better when we hear what somebody has to say, then we just read it. But that obvious thing wasn't so obvious to the folks who are actually communicating. They predicted that their recipients would get around 80% accurate, regardless of whether they were talking to the person or typing to the person. They didn't seem to appreciate that typing, AJ, such a hard worker, isn't that nonsense? They didn't seem to appreciate that their sarcasm wasn't coming through their fingers. So they didn't think that how the medium through which they were communicating mattered for how well they were actually communicating to another person, right? So this thing that's obvious in the abstract is not so obvious in practice. They were being egocentric. It also wasn't obvious to the recipients of this. The recipients who were 75% right when they heard what the person had to say, but were only at chance when they were reading, they actually thought they got 90% of these on average right in both the email and the voice condition. So they were the most overconfident and they were totally clueless about how the context in which they were communicating mattered for their ability. So here we see a problem of egocentrism, right? So, John, I'm teasing you about something. I think it's obvious I'm teasing you. I sent out this funny email, right? Then you, I think it's obvious, it's clear.  That's how friction can arise, for instance, from egocentrism, just one of many sorts of examples like that. Yeah, and we've seen the rise of the shorthand, the slash S, in written communication in these formats to denote sarcasm and the emojis and trying to add an extra color to what we're typing. What's fascinating to me is how poor we are at predicting what that future behavior or reaction will be in that moment. So there was a violent attack of someone in a car that was posted on Reddit. And if you actually look at the comments, the comments were all, man, I would have ran that person over. I would have got out of the car and gotten violent with them. I would have reacted in such a bold way based on what was happening to them. And the person replied to these people that in the moment, I froze.  But that prediction is actually quite faulty in reality.


All right, Mr. Gibson here with your next lesson in cryptography. And today we're going to be talking about positional number systems, which is something that we use all the time. Our base 10 number system or decimal, as we call it, is a prime example of a positional number system where every character, depending on where we write it or its position within the number, assigns some sort of value to that number that's not just implied based off of the character you've used. So when we define a positional number system, we say the base of the number system does a couple of things. It identifies the value of each position in the system, and it also tells you how many characters are needed to represent numbers. So for example, we use base 10. That tells us that every position within our digit of our number is a certain power of 10, and there's also only 10 different characters that we need to represent our numbers. Those characters are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. So the example we have on the screen, 1, 2, 7, which we would read as 127, and we know that because the 1 is just a representation. There is one group of 100. The 2 represents two groups of 10s. That's a power of 10. And the 7 represents 7 groups of 1, and 1 is also a power of 10. It's 10 to the 0 power. Just like 100 is 10 squared, 10 is 10 to the 1. So each of those positions tells us something about the value. The 2, we might think about that as representing 20, as opposed to if we started the number with a 2, that would be 200. So where the characters appear assign some value. We are most familiar with base 10 numbers, so we would call that decimal, and there's a couple of examples there, 17, 22, 99, 1,000. And again, decimal uses the numbers 0 through 9. Now we're going to represent those same exact four quantities using different bases. So another commonly used base in computer programming is octal. So as you might see from both the name and the base number, octal is a base of 8, and it uses the characters 0 through 7. So the number 17 in base 10 becomes the number 2, 1. We might read that as 21 because our brain is so trained on decimal. But the characters 2, 1 and base 8 is still 17. So it gets a little confusing when working in other bases when we try and read them out loud. The number 22 in decimal becomes the number 26 in octal, same quantity even though they look different. And so on down the line. Another common representation of numbers in computer programming is hexadecimal, so base 16. And our characters for that, this is where it gets a little tricky. Now like octal where we reduced the number of characters, so we just don't use 8 and 9. Hexadecimal needs more characters than what we typically have available. So we're going to go 0 through 9 like normal. But when we get to our 10th character out of the 16 that we need, we're going to switch over to the alphabet. So a quantity of 10 will be represented by A, a quantity of 11 will be represented by B, all the way up to a quantity of 15 represented by the letter F. So while we might say 17 in base 10, 11 in hexadecimal, 1,000 in decimal is 3E8 in hexadecimal. And we're going to talk in just a second about how we can convert back and forth between these. So you don't have to worry about that quite yet. And then probably the most commonly known alternate base number system that's used in computer programming is binary, only two numbers. So we just use the numbers 0 and 1. So the number 17 in base 10 becomes 1,0001. And the number 1000 becomes 111110100. And again, we're going to talk about a convert over to that in just a moment. But these are the ones you're going to want to be familiar with when we're working with cryptography and programming because different types of ciphers when we start using computers might implement operations in different bases. And that'll be a lesson that we'll cover in just a little bit is how do we do mathematical operations with these different representations of the numbers. Here's a nice visual that kind of shows you counting in the different number systems. So the third row labeled decimal in the blue is counting probably like we are used to counting. But we can see the counting taking place in the alternate number systems as well. So you can see that kind of binary is growing in the fastest. Octal kind of somewhere in the middle with decimal and then hexadecimal. If we let this run for just a little bit, we'll see. Continues to grow, but we need fewer characters. And that's part of the reason why people like hexadecimal is that it requires fewer characters or fewer positions rather to represent the same size numbers. So you can see that hexadecimal got up to like five something only only two places used where binary had like, you know, eight in there. So it's a little more compact way to write especially large numbers. Because it's not always obvious which base our number is going to be in when we write down the characters like three and then a seven like is that is that three seven thirty seven or is that three seven as a base eight number or a base 16 number. So these are some conventions that you'll see depending on the context. So base 10 numbers you would just write 1717 no additional information needed. If you want to write the number 22 and base 10 another way we could do that which is common when you're programming is the prefix 0 and then the lowercase letter D to represent decimal and then you just write the number after after the D. Base eight the number 17 would be to one and then a subscript of eight and then likewise the number 22 in decimal when we convert to octal becomes to six and we can represent that with a zero and then a lowercase o as the prefix similar types of notation for base 16 and base two. You can use a subscript that denotes the base of the number that you've written with the characters or hexadecimal can have a prefix of zero X and binary will have a prefix of zero B. All right, let's take a look at actually doing some conversion of other bases into decimal. Let's just start with kind of a refresher how we take our normal base 10 numbers and we convert them to a value in our head. So we've got the number of 4237 4237 and under each place I've written the value of that position. So the seven is 10 to the zero. So again, that's seven ones under the three. We've got 10 to the one, which means we have three 10s under the two. We've got 10 squared. So we've got two 100s and then under the four. We've got 10 cubes. So that's four 1000s and we can kind of write it out like that. So four times 10 to the cube plus two times 10 squared plus three times 10 to the one plus seven times 10 to the zero gives us the quantity that we're looking for here as decimal. Now this one's already in decimal. So that doesn't really illuminate anything to us, but having that strategy is going to be helpful when we do work on other bases. So for example, let's take a look at the binary number one zero one one and say we wanted to figure out what that was as a decimal. We can use the value of each position to help us convert. So like we did before we can kind of work from left to right. The first number one indicates to us that we have one group of two cubed. So one times two cubed. That's that's eight plus zero of two squared. So we got none of those. So that's add on zero and then we the orange one. So one two to the one will add that on. So now we've got eight plus zero plus two and the last one is one group of one because two to the zero is one. So we add a lot all up and we get 11 written as a base 10 number. We can do the same thing with hexadecimal again as a reminder B is the basically equivalent to the number 11 whereas E is equivalent to the number 14. So that'll become helpful here in just a moment. So we're going to convert these to decimal by again same operation. So the number two tells us we have two groups of 16 cubes B tells us we have 11 groups of 16 squared seven tells us we have seven groups of 16 to the one and E tells us we've got 14 groups of 16 to the zero. So we can just throw that into a calculator and we'll crunch out the number 11135. So again, it's the same number just two different ways to write it to be 70 hexadecimal 11135 base 10. Going the other ways a little bit trickier, but it's not too bad. So let's convert decimal numbers to other bases. So let's say that we've got our binary number. Sorry, our decimal number for two and want to convert it to binary. So the first question is what is the biggest power of two that is less than the number we're working with. So we know that two to the fifth is 32 and that is smaller than 42. The next largest power of two to the sixth is 64 and that's bigger than 42. So we know that this number is going to be no bigger than two to the fifth. Sorry, we know that this number will require no more digits than the one in the two to the fifth position. We call this number a six bit number and binary each position is referred to as a bit. So two to the fifth is the largest bit that we need and will need no more than six bits to represent this number. So now that we know that the first position of the number is one in the two to the fifth position, we need to figure out the remaining bits and we know that in total the remaining bits need to account for the the last 10 of value of 42 that first bit accounts for 32 out of the 42 the remaining five bits have to account for the last 10. So we need to think about, okay, if I need to add 10 more to the value here, what's the next biggest power of two that is smaller than 10 and that's two cubed. So I'm going to start filling in some of these blanks here. I now know that the from going from left to right, I need one zero one and two to the fifth, two to the fourth and two to the third respectively and that gets me up to a total of 40. So I need to represent two more with the remaining three bits. Now lucky for us, there's a position that represents a value of two and that's the two to the one spot so we can fill that up. And at this point, the bits that we've written account for all of the value we need from this number. So that last spot must be a zero. So again, we can verify the similar way that we just saw. We have one group of two to the fifth one group of two cubed and one group of two to the one together those things are 32 eight and two, which totals up to 42. We do the same thing with hexadecimal. So if we have the the decimal number 541, there are two groups of 16 squared. 16 squared is 256. There's two groups of that that fit into 541 because that that would be 512. That means that we have a remaining value of 29 that we need to account for. So if we need 29, I know I can do that with one group of 16 that gets me up to 528. And now we have a remaining 13 that we need to account for with the last position and 13 as its own character and hexadecimal. It's the character D. So to one D is equivalent to 541 in decimal. So that's that's the quick version of what a position on number system gets you multiple ways to represent the same number. We can convert back and forth to decimal. And we could even there's some algorithms for directly converting say from binary to hexadecimal or octal to binary. But for the purpose of this course just going back to decimal and then decimal to your new system is probably going to be the easiest way for you to think about it. In a future lesson, we're going to learn how we can work with operations on these numbers, but that's it for today. Thanks for watching and we'll catch you in the next one.


Hey mom, did you watch the movie trailer I sent you for the whale? Why didn't you like it? No, I never said there was an actual whale in it. It's Brendan Frasier Who said anything about free willy? No, there's no orca whales. There's no humpback. There's no sperm whale It's just Brendan Frasier. He's given a great performance here. I agree. He was very good-looking in the mummy mom That was a long time ago. He's playing a different character here. But just don't go see it, okay? I was just trying to show you something I thought you might like I I'm sorry for yelling. I just why do we do this every time then by all means go watch Maverick again Yes, I'll send you the trailer for the mummy right now. Okay. I love you. Hello Mom


We have the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro. These are both powered by not a Qualcomm chip, but a Tensor processor, Google's own chipset. Now let's find out how good it is for us gamers. So let's jump in. Hey guys, Thundie here and welcome back to another gaming video on a smartphone. This time, as you know, it's the 6 Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro. Now if you joined us for the very first time, we do gaming videos on the channel, so hit that subscribe button and notification icon to get notified for more videos like this. As you know very well by now, the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro are available to purchase or you have yours at this point in time. But you're wondering, how good is Google's new processor, the Tensor processor for gaming? Now, just some background history of what the Tensor processor is. Google has talked a lot about that. I'll leave you a link for that video, but this is something they've done as a wholly designed chipset and they've partnered with Samsung to craft this brand new chipset. Now, when it comes to what this brings to the table, it brings a ton of features and all functionality. So on the first off, we know that these two devices come in two different sizes and displays. The Pixel 6 is 6.5 inches, the 6 Pro is 6.7 inches and they both offer high refresh rates. You've got 90 hertz on the Pixel 6 and 120 hertz on the Pixel 6 Pro. Both of them are adaptive refresh rates and you can change that in the settings, although you can only switch from 60 hertz to adaptive, which means it will vary for you. So it's a standard simple approach, right? We get that part. Now, there are also some gaming features that Google has actually enacted into the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro within the software. So when you open up a game, you actually will get a game controller icon that pops up or you can go into your settings and just search for like game or gaming and that will bring up the game mode where you can go ahead and do a couple of things. You can take screenshots, you can of course turn on do not disturb. You can also screen record at the maximum refresh rate of the displays, either 90 or 120. And you can see your frame rates on screen, which is absolutely gorgeous. And I love that more companies are doing this for us gamers. Now, in terms of what we expect for gaming, now they come with massive batteries. The Pixel 6 comes with a 4,600 milliamp battery while the Pixel 6 Pro comes with a 5,000 milliamp battery. And we'll talk about the battery life and all that stuff in a second, but that is enough for a lot of our gaming needs. So let's start off with our very first game, right? This of course is Call of Duty Mobile. This is my starter for all bench tests. And with Call of Duty Mobile here, we have some really solid performance as you would expect. Now we have our settings max at everything high and we're able to play on both the 6 and the 6 Pro getting 60 frames per second, as you can see with our game benchmark scores. So nice solid performance across the board and that was really good to see. So that's a good start, right? Great. Now let's move on to PUBG Mobile. Now this is a game that can be graphically intensive and some of you say, you know, I can unlock it to 90 hertz, 120. I want with just a standard approach because that's what a lot of people do when they play PUBG Mobile, right? So we had PUBG Mobile both the 6 and the 6 Pro and it did play well. In terms of settings though, we're only able to achieve one of our two key settings. We're able to play on smooth extreme and on smooth extreme, we're able to get 60 frames per second on both the Pixel 6 and the 6 Pro. So that's solid gameplay performance as you would expect with every device we've used this here from either the Galaxy or the iPhone. Now the one thing we could not do is play Ultra HD Ultra, which said it was not available. Now this doesn't mean that the processor can handle it, it just means it's currently not available from the developer. So that option was not there. So that might be a little strike to the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro but we'll see how things develop again. I got these devices before they actually hit the market so let us put that in mind. Now speaking of things that we do need as we put it in mind are cases. And you guys know I love using speaking cases. I've been using them for years and they've been a channel sponsor on this channel and especially with our gaming videos. And I like using speaking cases when I gain because number one they provide some nice thermal protection and they provide some protection for devices, especially devices like the Pixel 6 Pro and 6 with that massive camera bump. Now with the Pixel 6 Pro, I'm using the liquid air case. It's got that rigid back which gives me better grip for something with a larger display. While with the Pixel 6, I'm using the Rugged Armor case. I like the feel and fit for it but any of these cases will work and if you want to use them, use the links down below. And also check out the PowerArch charger because the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro do not come with any chargers in the box. Okay, so we've got our cases, phones are protected, let's move on to the very next bad boy that we are waiting for which of course is Genshin Impact. Now Genshin Impact is a game that is graphically intensive and of course we downloaded it, we set it to the highest graphical setting at 60 frames per second. I maxed out everything which is what I do in every test. And this is where things became quite shocking for me. So within the first five minutes of gameplay, I started seeing just variable frame rates on screen while gaming using the Pixel 6 Pro and also with GameBench. You can see on GameBench that yes the average frame rate was still staying steady but it was variating between 28, 14, 30. Honestly, within the first five minutes, it dropped down from 60 frames per second down to the mid 40s. And by the time I finished playing 30 minutes of gameplay of Genshin Impact on both the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro, I ended up in an average frame rate of 35 and 36 frames per second respectively. So that should say something. Now I have not seen those kind of numbers and again, this to me is a bit shocking and I can say, hey, it might be something that has to do with an update but also might be just the performance of the chipset itself. So that is something to take note. Now some of you are wondering, okay, how does that correlate with benchmarks? What are the benchmarks for this device? So let's go to GameBench where we ran some benchmarks on here and see what we actually got. Now on the 6 Pro, we got a single-core performance of 1,001 and a multi-core performance of 2677. Now when we look at that in comparison, that is below the Galaxy S21 Ultra, the Exynos model, that's the Exynos 2100, which comes in at 3,176, also below the S21, the OnePlus 8 Pro. Now in single-core performance, that actually beats out the Exynos performance. So you see that there. Now I haven't run any comparisons with the Qualcomm version, which I'll be doing a separate video for you guys, especially wanna see what that gaming performance actually looks like. But the performance is much lower and that might be some of the issues we're seeing here with some of the games I just mentioned, especially with PUBG and Genshin Impact Watch, which is quite important. But set that aside for a second. When it comes to the higher frame rates, does it actually meet up to this higher frame rate demands? And I can tell you, evidently it does. Playing Vainglory, which right now Daniel is laughing, he's like, why did you even try? I just wanted to show you the frame rates to actually play the game, because I'm terrible about it. But it does 120 frames per second there, easy and solid. So you can achieve higher frame rates on the device. Now some of you also ask, hey Thunder E, what about emulators? Can we actually play emulators? So I went ahead and put Redream on, which is a Dreamcast emulator, and I was able to actually play on that. And it played well. Even though it was showing 120 frames per second on the inbuilt frame rate counter, it's actually 60 FPS. I'm not sure why that happened, but it ran really well, ran smooth. So I think your emulators will work on here. I wasn't able to try all. I did try also the GameCube emulator, I believe, but I didn't try the PlayStation emulator. So at least you have an idea that emulators will work on the system. Now you guys were probably looking and going, hmm, was that the Razer Q-Sheet? That didn't fit quite well, yes. So that's another thing you're gonna run into with the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro, because these devices have that massive camera bump. Game controllers, mobile controllers, like the Razer Q-Sheet, which basically house your smartphone into like a gaming console, a portable gaming console, just don't fit properly, especially Q-Sheet, which I found to be a bummer. It didn't work well with the Pixel 6 or the 6 Pro, simply because of the massive camera bump and how it is housed on this device. So if you have a Q-Sheet, you're looking to pick one up for this, I would say go with a Bluetooth controller, because that's the only thing that will work effectively. Now, speaking of using a controller and also playing other things, we do know that Google has services like Google Stadia, and we also know about Xbox Game Pass. Now, I set up both services and they do run well. Again, they're streaming services. This is more just to do with the connectivity, and I have to say they've both improved quite well. Going through Xbox Game Pass, menu is fast, and also the game's loaded faster, and I was able to play without any issues whatsoever. Same thing with Stadia. I did have some hiccups, which is kind of weird, but I don't think that has anything to do with the service. I think it's just something that happens once in a while, but it still played really well. So if you're thinking of game streaming services, you're gonna get very good performance. Now, two last things I wanna talk about, of course, are temperatures first, where we got temperatures about 107 degrees at its highest point, playing Genshin Impact for about 30 minutes or so, and I think that's the best I got in temperatures, highest I got in temperatures overall, and I think that's pretty solid. The device didn't run too hot in comparison to some other devices that could reach like 115 or so, so that was pretty cool, and I got those temperatures from both the Pixel 6 and the 6 Pro. When it comes to battery life, this is where I would say currently right now, I am still in the learning process of what that battery life really means. I would say on the Pixel 6 Pro, you're still gonna get solid battery life while gaming, where I did play for a total of, say, maybe about three to four hours on the device, and I went from 100 to about 60, about 65%. So take it as you will, I was playing a lot of Genshin Impact, I was playing a lot of PUBG on there, so I wanted to play games that were more intensive in terms of graphical performance and would drain. While with the Pixel 6 itself, playing for around the same amount of time, I went from 100% down to roughly around 55%, so a little bit more, but then again, you've got two different battery sizes. Now I didn't try this with, it's set at 60 Hertz, I wanted to play at its best setting as possible. So what does that all mean for the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro when it comes to gaming? It means first off, you can game on this device. That is very true, but it also means that a lot of things there do not match up to high-end mobile gaming at this point. I don't know if it's the processor itself, or if it's just software. I cannot make that full decision right now, but I can just show you what I got, and hopefully you guys will understand that maybe there might be some things that Google can do to improve that experience, or we're just stuck with that for the meantime. So if you have any questions and comments about gaming on the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro, let me know. Stay tuned guys. I do have a solid versus for you coming up with the Pixel 6 Pro versus the Galaxy S1 Ultra, covering everything from camera, video, gaming, and just overall which one is better. And of course, check out our accessories videos on both devices that you see here. Thank you very much guys, and always enjoy your entertainment.