From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. There are very few political issues that get bipartisan support these days. Never mind consensus spanning geopolitical boundaries. But whether we're talking across the aisle or over the pond, there seems to be common agreement that the power of big tech firms should be regulated. But the government's track record when it comes to antitrust aimed at big tech is actually really mixed, mixed at best. History has shown that market forces, rather than public policy, have been much more effective at curbing monopoly power in the technology industry. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we welcome in frequent cube contributor Dave Michela, author and senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Dave, welcome, good to see you again. Hey, thanks, Dave, good to be here. So you just recently published an article, we're going to bring it up here, and I'll read the title. Theory aside, antitrust advocates should keep their big tech ambitions narrow. And in this post, you argue that big sweeping changes like breaking apart companies to moderate monopoly power in the tech industry have been ineffective compared to market forces. But you're not saying government shouldn't be involved rather you're suggesting that more targeted measures combined with market forces are the right answer. Can you maybe explain a little bit more the premise behind your research and some of your conclusions? Sure, and first to go back to that title, when I said theory aside, that is referring to a huge debate that's going on in global antitrust circles these days about whether antitrust should follow the traditional path of being invoked when there's real harm, demonstrable harm to consumers or a new theory that says that any sort of vast monopoly power inevitably will be bad for competition and consumers at some point. So you're best to intervene now to avoid harms later. And that school, which was a very minor part of the antitrust world for many, many years is now quite ascendant and the debate goes on. The matter which side of that you're on, the question sort of is there, well, all right, well, if you're going to do something to take on big tech and clearly many politicians and regulators are sort of issuing to do something, what would you actually do? And what are the odds that that'll do more good than harm? And that was really the origins of the piece and trying to take an historical view of that. I learned a new word. Thank you, Neil Brandeisian had to look it up. And but basically you're saying that traditionally it was proving consumer harm versus being proactive about the possibility or likelihood of consumer harm. Correct. And that's a really big shift that, you know, a lot of traditional antitrust people strongly object to but is now sort of the trendy and more ascendant view. Got it. Okay, let's look a little deeper to the history of tech monopolies and government action and see what we can learn from that. We put together this slide, which that we can reference. It shows the three historical targets in the tech business and now the new ones. In 1969, the DOJ went after IBM, Big Blue. And then 13 years later, it dropped its suit. And then in 1984, the government broke my bell apart and in the late 1990s went after Microsoft. I think it was 1998 and the Wintel monopoly. And recently in an interview with tech journalist, Kara Swisher, the FTC chair, Lena Kahn, claimed that the government played a major role in moderating the power of tech giants historically. And I think she even specifically referenced Microsoft or maybe Kara did and basically saved the industry and consumers from the dominance of companies like Microsoft. So Dave, let's briefly talk about, and Kara, by the way, didn't really challenge that. She kind of let it slide. But let's talk about each of these and test this concept a bit. Were the government actions in these instances necessary? What were the outcomes and the consequences? Maybe you could start with IBM and AT&T. Yeah, it's a big topic and there's a lot there and a lot of history. But I might just sort of introduce it by saying, for whatever reasons, antitrust has been part of the entire information technology industry history from main France to the current period. And that slide sort of gives you that. And the reasons for that are, I think ones that we sort of know, the economies of scale, network effects, lock-in, safe choices, lots of things that explain it. But the good bit about that is we actually have so much history of this and we can at least see what's happened in the past. And when you look at IBM and AT&T, they both were massive antitrust cases. The one against IBM was dropped. And it was dropped in, as you say, in 1980. Well, what was going on? At that time, IBM was sort of considered invincible and unbeatable. But it was 1981 that the personal computer came around and within just a couple of years, the world could see that the computing paradigm had changed from mainframes and minis to PCs, Lens, client server and what have you. So IBM in just a couple of years went from being unbeatable, you can't compete with them, we have to break up with them to being incredibly vulnerable and in trouble and never fully recovered and is sort of a shell of what it once was. And so the market took care of that and no action was really necessary just by everybody thinking there was. The case of AT&T, they did act and they broke up the company. And I would say, first question is, was that necessary? Well, lots of countries didn't do that. And the reality is, 1980, breaking it up into long distance in regional may have made some sense. But by the 1990, it was pretty clear that the telecom world was going to change dramatically from long distance and fixed wire services to internet services, data services, wireless services and all of these things that were going to restructure the industry anyways. But AT&T one to me is very interesting because of the unintended consequences. And I would say the main unintended consequence of that was that America's competitiveness and telecommunications took a huge hit. And today, to this day, telecommunications is dominated by European, Chinese and other firms. And the big American sort of players of the time, AT&T, which Western Electric became Lucent, Lucent is now owned by Nokia and is really out of it completely. And most notably and compellingly, Bell Labs. The Bell Labs, once the world's most prominent research institution, now also a shell of itself and as it was part of Lucent is also now owned by the Finnish company, Nokia. So that restructuring greatly damaged America's core strength in telecommunications, hardware and research. And one can argue we've never recovered right through this sort of 5G today. So it's a very good example of the market taking care of the big problem, but meddling, leading to some unintended consequences that have hurt the American competitiveness. And as we'll talk about probably later, you can see some of that going on again today and in the past with Microsoft and Intel. Right, yeah, Bell Labs was an American gem, kind of like Xerox Park and basically gone now. Okay, you mentioned Intel and Microsoft, Microsoft and Intel. Many, as many people know, some young people don't. IBM unwittingly handed its monopoly to Intel and Microsoft by outsourcing the microprocessor and operating system respectively. Those two companies ended up with IBM ironically agreeing to take OS2, which was its proprietary operating system and giving Intel, I mean, Microsoft Windows not realizing that its ability to dominate a new disruptive market like PCs and operating systems had been vaporized to your earlier point by the new Intel ecosystem. Now Dave, the government wanted to break Microsoft apart and split its OS business from its application software. In the case of Intel, Intel only had one business. You pointed out microprocessors, so couldn't bust it up. But take us through the history here and the consequences of each. Well, the Microsoft one is sort of a classic because the antitrust case, which was raging in the sort of mid 90s and 1998 when it finally ended, those were the very, once again, everybody said Bill Gates was unstoppable, no one could compete with Microsoft. They'd buy them, destroy them, predatory pricing, whatever they were accusing of the attacks on Netscape, all these sort of things. But those were the very years where it was becoming clear first that Microsoft basically missed the early big years of the internet. And that again, later missed all the early years of the mobile phone business going back to Blackberries and Pilots and all those sorts of things. So here we are, the government making the case that this company is unstoppable and you can't compete with them. The very moment, they're entirely on the defensive. And therefore wasn't surprising that that suit eventually was dropped with some minor concessions about Microsoft making it a little bit easier for third parties to work with them and treating people a little bit more even handily, perfectly good things that they did. But again, the market took care of the problem far more than the antitrust activities did. The Intel one is also interesting because it's sort of like the AT&T one. On the one hand, antitrust actions made Intel much more likely and in fact required to work with AMD enough to keep that company in business and having AMD lowered prices for consumers, certainly probably sped up innovation in the personal computer business and appeared to have a lot of benefits for those early years. But when you look at it from a longer point of view and particularly when you look at it again from a global point of view, you see that, well, and not so clear because the very presence of AMD meant that there's a lot more pressure on Intel in terms of its pricing, its profitability, its flexibility and its volumes. All the things that have made it harder for them to A, compete with chips made in Taiwan let alone build them in the United States. And therefore that long-term effect of essentially requiring Intel to allow AMD to exist has undermined Intel's position globally and arguably it's undermined America's position in the long run. And certainly Intel today is far more vulnerable to an arm and Nvidia, to other specialized chips to China, to Taiwan, all of these things are going on out there. They're less capable of resisting that than they would have been otherwise. So you thought we had some real benefits with AMD and lower prices for consumers, but the long-term unintended consequences are arguably pretty bad. Yeah, that's why we recently wrote the Intel II strategic to fail, we'll see. Okay, now we come to 2022 and there are five companies with antitrust targets on their backs. Although Microsoft seems to be the least susceptible to U.S. government, ironically, intervention at this point, but maybe not. And we show the Cinco Comas Club in an homage to Russ Henneman who shows Silicon Valley, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all with trillion-dollar plus valuations, but Metta, well, it briefly crossed that threshold, like Mr. Henneman lost a comma and is now well under that market cap, probably around five or 600 million. Sorry, billion. But under serious fire, nonetheless, Dave, people often don't realize the immense monopoly power that IBM had, which, relatively speaking, when measured its percent of industry revenue or profit, dwarf that of any company in tech ever, but the industry is much smaller than no internet, no cloud. Does it call for a different approach this time around? How should we think about these five companies, their market power, the implications of government action, and maybe what you suggested, more narrow action versus broad sweeping changes? Yeah, there's a lot there. I mean, if you go back to the old days, IBM had, what, 70% of the computer business globally, and AT&T had 90% or so of the American telecom market. So market shares that today's players can only dream of. Intel and Microsoft had 90% of the personal computer market. And then you look at today, the big five, and as wealthy and as incredibly successful as they've been, you sort of have almost the argument that's wrong on the face of it. How can five companies, all of which compete with each other to at least some degree, how can they all be monopolies? And the reality is that they're not monopolies, they're oligopolies, they're very powerful firms, but none of them have an outright monopoly on anything. There are competitors in all the spaces that they're in and probably increasingly so. And so, yeah, I think people conflate the extraordinary success of the companies with this belief that therefore they are monopolists and I think they're far less so than those in the past. Great. I want to do a quick drill down into cloud computing. It's a key component of digital business infrastructure in his book, seeing digital Dave Michela coined a term, the matrix or the key, which is really referred to the key technology platforms on which people are going to build digital businesses. Dave, we joke, you should have called it the metaverse. You were way ahead of your time. But I want to look at this ETR chart. We show spending momentum or net score in the vertical axis, market share or pervasiveness in the data set on the horizontal axis. We show this view a lot. We put a dotted line at the 40% mark, which indicates highly elevated spending. And you can sort of see Microsoft in the upper right. It's so far up to the right, it's hidden behind the January 22 and AWS is right there. Those two dominate the cloud far ahead of the pack including Google Cloud, Microsoft and to a lesser extent, AWS. They dominate in a lot of other businesses, productivity, collaboration, database, security, video conferencing, Mar-Tech with LinkedIn, PC software, et cetera, et cetera. Googles or alphabets business of course is ads and we don't have similar spending data on Apple and Facebook, but we know these companies dominate their respective businesses. But just to give you a sense of the magnitude of these companies, here's some financial data that's worth looking at briefly. The table ranks companies by market cap in trillions, that's the second column and then everyone in the club but meta. And each has revenue well over $100 billion Amazon approaching half a trillion dollars in revenue. The operating income and cash positions are just mind boggling and the cash equivalents are comparable or well above the revenues of highly successful tech companies like Cisco, Dell, HPE, Oracle and Salesforce. They're extremely profitable from an operating income standpoint with the clear exception of Amazon and we'll come back to that in a moment. And we show the revenue multiples in the last column, Apple, Microsoft and Google just insane. And Dave, there are other equally important metrics. Cap X is one which kind of sets the stage for future scale and there are other measures. Yeah, including our research and development where those companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. And I think it's easy to look at those numbers and just say, this doesn't seem right. How can any companies have so much and spend so much? But if you think of what they're actually doing those companies are building out the digital infrastructure of essentially the entire world. And I remember once meeting some folks at Google and they said, you know, beyond AI, beyond search beyond Android, beyond all the specific things we do the biggest thing we're actually doing is building a physical infrastructure that can deliver search results on any topic in microseconds and the physical capacity that they built costs those sorts of money. And when people start saying, well we should have lots and lots of smaller companies. Well, that sounds good, but you have to, where are those companies going to get the money to build out what needs to be built out? And, you know, every country in the world is trying to build out its digital infrastructure and some are going to do it much better than others. I want to just come back to that chart in Amazon for a bit. You know, notice they're comparatively tiny operating profit as a percentage of revenue. Amazon is like Bezos giant lifestyle business. It's really never been that profitable. Like most retail, however, there's one other financial data point about around Amazon's business that we want to share. And this chart here shows Amazon's operating profit in the blue bars and AWS's in the orange. And the gray line is the percentage of Amazon's overall operating profit that comes from AWS. That's the right most access. So last quarter, we were well over 100% underscoring the power of AWS and the horrendous margins in retail. But AWS is essentially funding Amazon's entrance into new markets, whether it's grocery or movies, Bezos moves into space. So Dave, a while back you collaborated with us and we asked our audience, what could disrupt Amazon? We came up with your detailed help, a number of scenarios as shown here. And we asked the audience to rate the likelihood of each scenario in terms of its likelihood of disrupting Amazon with a 10 being highly likely. And on average, the score was six with complacency, arrogance, blindness, you know, self-inflicted wounds really taking the top spot with 6.5. So Dave is breaking up Amazon the right formula in your view. Why or why not? Yeah, there's a couple of things there. The first is sort of the irony that when people in the sort of regulatory world talk about the power of Amazon, they almost always talk about their power in consumer markets, whether it's books or retail or impact on malls or you know, main street shops or whatever. And as you say, they make very little money doing that. The interest people almost never look at the big cloud battle between Amazon, Microsoft, on a lesser extent, Google or Alibaba or others, even though that's where they're by far highest market share and pricing power and all those things are. So the regulatory focus is sort of weird, but you know, the consumer stuff obviously gets more appeal to the general public. But that survey you referred to to me was interesting because one of the challenges I sort of sent myself is like, okay, well, if I'm gonna say that IBM's case, AT&T's case, Microsoft's case, in all those situations, the market was the one that actually minimized the power of those firms and therefore the antitrust stuff wasn't really necessary. Well, how true is that going to be again? Just as it's been true in the past, doesn't mean it's true now. So you know, one of the possible scenarios over the 2020s that might make it all happen again. And so each of those were sort of questions that we put out to others. But the ones that to me, but by far are the most likely, I mean, they have the traditional one of company cultures sort of getting fat and happy and all that. That's always the case. But the more specific ones, first of all, by far I think is China.  It would be vulnerable if it didn't have the cloud profits behind it. But imagine a year from now, two years from now, trade tensions with China get worse. And you know, some Christmas comes along and China just says, well, you know, American consumers, if you want that new exercise bike or you know, that new shoes or clothing, well, anything that we make, well, actually that's not available on Amazon right now, but you can get that from Alibaba. And you know, maybe in America, that's a little more far-fetched, but in many countries around the world it's not far-fetched at all. And so the retail division's vulnerability to China is just seems pretty obvious.  But you know, you could argue that maybe someday that's not really necessary that you know, you have search which finds where a good is made and a logistical system that picks that up and delivers it to customers. And why do you need all those warehouses anyways? So those are probably the two top ones, but you know, there are others. I mean, you know, a lot of retailers as they get stronger online, maybe they start pulling back some of the premium products from Amazon. Amazon takes their cut of whatever, 30% or so. People might want to keep more of that in the house. You see some of that going on today. So the idea that, you know, the Amazon is invulnerable disruption is probably wrong. And it's part of the work that I'm doing is part of the stuff I'll do with Dave and Silke. So in angle is, you know, how's that true for the others too? What's one of the scenarios for Google or Apple or Microsoft and the scenarios are all there. And so, you know, will these companies be disrupted if they have in the past? Well, you can't say for sure, but the scenarios are certainly plausible and I certainly wouldn't bet against it. And that's what history tells us. And it could easily happen once again. And therefore, you know, and you trust people to at least be cautionary and humble and realize that maybe they don't need to act as much as they think. And now one of the things that you mentioned in your piece was, you felt like narrow remedies were more logical. So you're not arguing for totally laissez faire. You're pushing for remedies that are more targeted in scope. And while the EU just yesterday announced new rules to limit the power of tech companies and we showed the article and some comments here, the regulators, they took the social media to announce a victory and they had a press conference. I know you watched that. It was sort of a back slapping fest. The comments, however, that we've sort of listed here are mixed. Some people applauded, but we saw many comments that were, hey, this is a horrible idea. This was rushed together and these are going to result, as you say, in unintended consequences. This is serious stuff. They're talking about applying what appear to be, to your point, your prescription, more narrowly defined restrictions, although a lot of them, to any company with a market cap of more than 75 billion euro or turnover of more than 7.5 billion euro, which is a lot of companies. And opposing huge penalties for violations, up to 20% of annual revenue for repeat offenders. Wow. Again, you've taken a brief look at these developments. You watched the press conference. What do you make of this? This is an application of more narrow restrictions, but in your quick assessment, did they get it right? Yeah, let's break that down a little bit, start a little bit of history again and then get to Europe, because although big sweeping breakups of the type that were proposed for IBM, Microsoft, weren't necessary, that doesn't mean that the government didn't do some useful things because they did. In the case of IBM, government forces in Europe and America basically required IBM to make it easier for companies to make peripherals, tape drives, disk drives, printers that worked with IBM mainframes. They made them unbundle their software pricing that made it easier for database companies and others to sell their products. With AT&T, it was the government that required AT&T to actually allow other phones to connect to the network, something they argued at the time would destroy security or whatever. It was the government that required them to allow MCI, the long distance carrier, to connect to the AT network for local deliveries. And with Microsoft and Intel, the government required them to at least treat their suppliers more evenly and handily in terms of pricing and policies and support and such things. So the lessons out there is the big stuff wasn't really necessary, but the little stuff actually helped a lot. And I think you can see the scenarios and argue in the piece that there's little stuff that can be done today. In all the cases for the big five, there are things that you might wanna consider. The companies aren't saints, they take advantage of their power, they use it in ways that sometimes can be reined in and make for better off overall. And so that sort of brings us to the European piece of it. And to me, the European piece is much more the bad scenario of doing too much than the wiser course of trying to be narrow and specific. What they've basically done is they have a whole long list of narrow things that they're all trying to do at once. So they want Amazon not to be able to share data about its selling partners and they want Apple to do, open up the app store and they don't want Google to be able to share data across its different services and Android search, mail or whatever. And they don't want Facebook to be able to, they want to force Facebook to open up to other messaging services. And so, and they wanna do all these things for all the big companies, all of which are American and they wanna do all that starting next year. And to me, that looks like a scenario of a lot of difficult problems done quickly, all of which might have some value have done really, really well, but all of which have all kinds of risks for the unintended consequence we've talked before. And therefore they seem to me, being too much too soon and the sort of problems we've seen in the past. And frankly, to really say that, I mean, the Europeans would never have done this to the companies if they're European firms. They're doing this because they're all American firms and the sort of frustration of Americans firms dominance of the European tech industry has always been there going back to IBM, Microsoft, Intel and all of them. But it's particularly strong now because the tech business is so big. And so I think the politics of this, of at a time where we're supposedly all this great unity of America and NATO and Europe in regards to Ukraine, having the Europeans essentially go after the most important American industry brings in the geopolitics in a, I think an unavoidable way. And I would think this story is going to get pretty tense over the next year or so. And as you say, the Europeans think that they're taking massive actions. They think they're doing the right thing. They think this is the natural follow on to the GDPR stuff and even a bigger version of that. And they think they have more to come and they see themselves as the people taming big tech, not just within Europe, but for the world and absent any other rules that they may pull that off. I mean, GDPR has indeed spread despite all of its flaws. So the European thing, which it doesn't necessarily get huge attention here in America is certainly getting attention around the world. And I would think it'd get more, even more going forward. And the caution there is the US public policy makers, maybe they can provide, they will provide a tailwind, not maybe it's a blind spot for them. And it could be a template, like you say, just like GDPR. Okay, Dave, we got to leave it there. Thanks for coming on the program today. Always appreciate your insight and your views. Thank you. Dave, thanks a lot Dave. All right, don't forget these episodes are all available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search breaking analysis podcast, check out ETR's website at etr.ai. We publish every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. And you can email me david.volante at siliconangle.com or DM me at dvolante. Comment on my LinkedIn post. This is Dave Vellante for Dave Michela for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Have a great week, stay safe, be well, and we'll see you next time.


Hey everyone, are you having a tough time with your credit settings? Well guys, we have something that will help you. It's a chore to type those names one by one. And what if we tell you that there's an extension for you to do that? It'll make your life easier and more convenient. Hey freedom, what's up? My name is Nolden, welcome to Freedom Central, the home of all freedom content. On this episode, let's talk about credit rolls.  So guys, without any further ado, let's dive into the episode of Freedom Quick Tips. Hey there, do you have a lot of members and it's becoming a real chore to put them on your videos? Well, you don't need to worry about that. Credit roll is a good app or extension to help you out with your channel. Credit roll is an app that helps you identify all your members in your YouTube channel and you can instantly copy all of your supporting members. You can export it to .txt, to .csv, and .json. Whatever file you want to have, it will be given to you in bulk. So the question is now, how do you use credit roll? Well, that's simple. You just go to their website, www.creditroll.app, and from there you can either choose Mac or Windows or whatever platform you are using. Wait for the download to finish, install the app, and then once installed, you can open the app, log into your Google email, then from your Google email, you will be automatically logged into your YouTube channel. Now that you have the app logged into your YouTube channel, in the credit roll app, it should show you all of your members inside your channel. You can either use a copy button which can be found underneath your members, or if you feel you want to be more organized, you can convert them to .txt, to .csv, or .json. Plus guys, you can treat credit roll as an extension for Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro, whichever you are using. Just go to their extensions, click on credit roll, and that's it. The app will pop out. It's good if you're doing any b-rolls with all your members. What do you think guys? Do you think this is a good app for you and for all content creators who want to honor their members? Or do you have other suggestions that can improve on this app? Let us know down below.  Before you leave guys, please leave a like, subscribe, and gong that bell. My name is Noel guys, bringing you tips on how to grow your channel. Always remember, freedom, quick tips. I'm going to be seeing you guys in the next episode. Goodbye!


Now if I annoy her they start again.   He's gonna be like why do I need this toxic mustache parakeet? Telling you There never is with her See it's not just me. She's mean to her own.


This is Stink Tech, Hawaii. Community Matters here. We're back. We're live with our flagship energy show. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Stink Tech and the flagship energy show I referred to is Hawaii, the State of Clean Energy, which is a creation of Sharon Moriwaki years ago. It has to be five, six, seven long time years ago. It's been a while. It's been a fun ride. It has, hasn't it? It has. It's been a great ride. From a small little nobody knew what was happening in energy to today, we have so much happening in energy. We don't know where to go with it. Right? So much. And you've been the co-chair all this time. I was there when you invented this show. I remember the moment I could, I could draw you a whole design of what happened. Remember, it came off of it being energy, the hidden crisis. Remember that? Yes, I do. It's every week, not just once, I think once a day. It was a great thing. It's been a great thing. And we've covered so much. And you've gotten better and better at organizing it and bringing people in for cogent discussions on what's going on. So here we are together. We were going to have Roz Beger. Sure. I'm so sure. But she has to do the people's work. You always expect that during the legislative session. So she has two hearings, and she really wanted to come. But it was scheduled at 2.45, and she didn't think she could get here in time. But we appreciate your work. And she will be here, so we need to make some time for her to come on another show. Yeah, we will, of course. So alone at last, you know what I'm saying? Yay! And I wanted to ask you to discuss the, well, first, the Maui conference that is taking place right now as we speak. Why we don't have many people here today. It's just us, Jay. We couldn't afford to go to Maui, Jay. Well, it's been going on for about five years. Yes. It's strong in the sense that it attracts some, you know, very heavyweight energy people. National energy people. And it gives them a chance to go away and push through themselves of Maui without all of the legislative, you know, session around. We're all stuck in the legislature. So I think it's a good thing to have a way that everybody in the field can mingle and see what's going on. So that's a good thing. So, yes, so they should be there. We hope to get news back next week of what happened and add it to our agenda. Yeah, they've had some creative discussions, I recall, over the years. And you've got to give them credit. You've got to give Maui County credit. The mayor and Fred Riddell, the energy commissioner. And it was the, what, MEDB, the Maui Economic Development Board. Jeannie Scott for a long time. She's done a good job. Very good in bringing all of that together. And they're the banner of economic development. So it is bringing in business. It's bringing in industry and innovators and entrepreneurs. So that's a good thing with government, with government. So while that's happening in Maui, and we wish them well, we'll find out what happened afterward. Let's talk about the legislature, which is happening right now. I can feel it. I can feel the waves emanating from the square building, and they are waves of energy, aren't they? They are waves of energy. And we heard from Representative Chair Chris Lee last week about all this happening. It was very good, wasn't it? And I think on the Senate side, there are a number of bills as well. And it's crossed. So there are some bills. I think I have the energy policy forum does monitor these bills. And for those bills that we really think are very good or very bad, we chime in. But for most part, we see as it morphs through the session. And there are right now 25 bills that we've been watching. If I were in a nutshell, kind of put them into categories, I think there's a lot more planning kinds of bills. I think with climate change and sustainability, that's never been so front and center at the legislature. Climate change is wise. You've been instrumental in connecting, if you will, energy. The first issue, back when, has to be more than, well, whenever the energy policy forum started, that has to be almost 10 years ago. No, more like 15. 15. Oh, sorry. And you were the guy who created this need to bring everybody together and get behind clean energy because that wasn't the case when the energy policy forum started. And that was at least, what, five years of effort to make that public awareness. And you did that. You had a lot of programs to do that. And then, I remember this was like the light bulb went on. All of a sudden you said, wait a minute. What about transportation? Oh, that's right. You know, transportation is $6 billion worth of fossil fuel coming into the state every year, and we're, you know, frittering it away when we could have clean transportation. And I remember how you realized that and connected that up for a whole new direction. Want to talk about it? Sure. I think during that time, we saw that 60% really of the consumption came from transportation. A lot of it was a ground transportation. We weren't, we were doing all the work in the electrical sector. So we put together, at that time, we put together a task force. It was about 20 or 30 people from various sectors, the trucking industry, vehicle, automobile deals, association, HADA, and government. And part of it was to come up with a strategy for how do we deal with transportation because it's not regulated. It's all over, and we're using so much of it. There's airlines as well as ground. But the big part of it was ground. So we got a grant. We went for federal money. We got some state money. And we put together a strategic plan. We did some research of where people were in terms of the kinds of transportation. What would they do? Gas prices went up, gas prices went down. What would they be willing to do? And this was before EVs were on the road. This was 2008 or 2009. And we've kept on going in that direction, but the real push was in the electrical sector. Well, today, when we talk about it, on the books at the legislature, it's now having total 100% renewables in transportation, ground transportation. And that's a far cry from where we were. But it's just the aspiration. And when you have people in the field saying, well, you got to not put it out there because then it's just too overwhelming, daunting. We can't get there. I think that's the back and forth of having a goal that's aspirational, but having milestones in which we can slowly move to that. And so you build the market around it. So that's where we are today. Just as you were instrumental in development of the energy policy forum in the first place, and for that matter, the Clean Energy Initiative, even before Lingo Lingo ever created the Clean Energy Initiative program back in 2008. I was saying, it's just the stars came together at that time. Okay. The stars came together. But you were there, Sharon. I attribute a lot of the energy and energy to you. But then this whole thing about transportation, it struck me at the time that this was not easy because everybody was focused on solar and clean energy and talk about the mix, what kind of sources of clean energy from the environment in Hither and Jan. And all of a sudden, you said it was you. I wasn't really aware of this. We got to do something about transportation. You had to work very hard because it is not a natural connection in the public view in the public sphere. And you had to bring those strands, those connections together to make people realize that this is all part of the same pie. And you've done that. And look what happened. Legislature now recognizes the fact that they're connected and industry recognizes it and government at all levels recognize it. There are all these coordinates around town, around the state. They're all focused on transportation. I'm sorry to say, I believe, this is my view, that you were instrumental in raising that level of awareness. Visionary, Sharon. I'm sorry. That's what I feel. Well, thank you, Jay. But I wouldn't take all that much credit. I think that it was something that needed to be stated. I think people knew it. They knew that transportation was a big part of our energy use and our fossil fuel use. But it was just hard to get a handle on. And so now, I think people coming together, again, it's always the collaboration, people coming together and saying, yes, this is a need. This is something we should do. So now the Department of Transportation, remember the Department of Transportation, is going to come to the table. Right. We can even get them to talk about it. Yeah. So now they're leading the charge. They have a sustainable transportation task force. They've been meeting for a couple of years, and they go around to the neighbor islands as well. Because our leaders, like Kauai and Maui and the big island, have a say, and they are leading the charge on the ground transportation. And the counties have raised their awareness. They have offices dealing with it. They have people whose job it is to realize clean transportation. And they talk about it all the time. They weren't talking about it five years ago, I'm sorry. No, right. So today it's really front and center of what we're doing. And the other thing I just want to say is that we've pushed, this is the energy policy form, of everybody coming to the table and looking at it in a big picture way. This is my area and I just want to have my bill or my company support. It really is what is good for the state. And so transportation, what we've brought together more recently is the integration of transportation and electricity. That it's really one big how we use fossil fuel or not. And how to get that integrated and more into a comprehensive view of how we as a state can work together. Yeah. And then you realize over time when you start integrating these things, you realize that energy is so important in our lives, in our society together, in our economy and in our future. And we cannot marginalize it in any way. We have to see it as central in pretty much all our planning and all the things we do. That's one thing that comes out of it. To me is the energy policy forum could not have done this without, you know, it's like we say in the law of business, real estate is not about land. Real estate is about relationships. That's right. And so is energy. Absolutely, absolutely. I think without the kinds of people on the forum and it's over time we've involved. But it's getting all the diverse sectors and organizations. But the people, it's the people who trust each other that we're all doing what's good for the state. And that's like 80% of really the challenge, right? And we have that on the forum, which, you know, I think that's one of the reasons why we've been successful in pushing the envelope on energy all these years in a collaborative, civil way of people coming together. That's true. I mean, you have on the forum, you have people whose interests financially, economically are very diverse. You have the oil companies on one side and you have the activists on the other side. And somehow you've got them to talk to each other. And they do. Yeah, and they do. And I think it's, again, you say, what you say is true. It's a relationship that if you know a person, you know, and you like a person, then you can deal with the problems and how you resolve the problems. And that's, you know, how we've operated, you know, in terms of working together. It always amazes me how you do this, Sharon.  You understand government. I don't know about that. You understand the dynamics of human progress. And you understand the big picture, but you understand the personal relationships and you put it all together somehow. And the result is what I consider a great achievement in a fairly short period of time. Thank you, thank you. Okay, I mean every word of it. Well, you too, you've been really instrumental. I remember in the early days when we used to go to the legislature and we'd have a whole day briefing. And I think it was Mina, Representative Morita, who was helping us. She was a member of the forum. And she said, you know, we had these forums and you have all these people presenting, all this technical information. And she says, and you see, there's very few legislators here. She says it's boring. So then we started to, you know, with your help, we started to make it more fast, fast-paced. And we said, how does it deal with people's problems and putting it in the context of what does this mean for the public? What does it mean for people? And why you, Mr. and Ms. Legislator, should know this is what people care about and what we're doing about it. And that was you, Jay. So kudos to you. Well, thanks for that. But, you know, these legislative briefings, I consider very important. You always organize every year for, I don't know how many years already. Aside from the conferences that you've been doing for industry and for, you know, the players, the stakeholders, you also do this legislative briefing, which I think is very important to them. They should understand you. One cannot assume that legislators know what's going on. They're people like the rest of us. And you have to give them that, you know, that's going on. It's complex. And it gets more complex. And I want to refer back to what happened in the middle of January this year. Because that was another new departure. It was, yes. Because then you connected energy, transportation, and guess what? Oh, and sustainability. Sustainability. All together. And when we come back from this break, I want to ask you how you did that, because that's really important. We'll be right back. This is Think Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness.  So far up in the confusion. Nothing is making sense. For me and you, there's got to be solutions. How to make a brighter day. I'm Ethan Allen, host of Likeable Science on Think Tech Hawaii. Every Friday afternoon at 2 p.m., I hope you'll join me for Likeable Science, where we'll dig into science, dig into the meat of science, dig into the joy and delight of science. We'll discover why science is indeed fun, why science is interesting, why people should care about science, and care about the research that's being done out there. It's all great. It's all entertaining. It's all educational. So I hope to join me for Likeable Science. Okay, I'm Jay Fidel here on Hawaii, the state of clean energy. And you need to know the person sitting with me. Sharon Moriwaki. She's modest, but she has achieved incredible things in and around energy and transportation and now sustainability and planning, because what happened, what happened this year? And it's again, it's the same sort of process that happened where Sharon recognized the need to connect these things for good policy in the state and to communicate these things to the legislature. I hope that worked. She wrapped in, folded in notions that we've had a while, notions that spring out of environmental consciousness into the energy bailiwick, okay? And that means sustainability, environment. It means resilience. And it means planning. And you put all that together for the legislature in the middle of January, just before the session began. Can you talk about how that came to be and what happened? I think from the energy sphere, we've always felt that this was, we had to connect up the dots because it was related to the whole economy. It was related to our environment. And it's not, at the session, you're getting bills. There are very specific changes in the law or additions to the law. But we need a big picture and this forum has been working on this for like several years now. How do you get everybody who's involved in different parts of the picture together? And so this year, we wanted to focus on long range planning and the right kind of planning. And that you don't take your eyes off the track forward by diversions along the way, which is what has happened all these years. And so... With plans that go on the shelf and don't get realized or implemented. It's easier to kick the can down the road than try to put the money in where it should be. So we wanted to raise the awareness on planning. And I see some of the bills there here that still are alive now crossing that have to do with planning, sustainability, looking at energy and looking at the Paris Accord and different goals of it, which is energy, water, and various aspects of it, which is a big picture and how we need to really plan forward and stick to it. So the legislative briefing had an effect.  It's like trying to, you know, put a drawstring around everything and put it all on the table and have it interact. But it worked. I mean, they accepted this connection. And now we have an initiative that wraps around everything. And I think it's been developing over time. We've got the Hawaii Green Growth, which has brought together a lot of the county and state and federal agencies, as well as the mayors with the Aloha Challenge, which is sustainability again. But you know, sustainability was worked on way back when, with the Hawaii 2050. And it just sort of, I guess, was not really, its time had not come. Well, today it's really the foundation in law that now we can build on to really start putting some teeth and some structure to it. I hesitate to use the term, but it's like the perfect storm. Because we are going to get a perfect storm one of these days soon here in El Nino year. And it's going to shake us up. You're very prescient. We'd better get very conscious about this. And it's all together. We have to do things and plan things and take steps to protect ourselves, our community and our state and our economy. And now is the time to be focused on these things. That's what the briefing did. I feel like the legislature got the message. I think so. And well, of course, in the environment, they're seeing it for themselves. They're seeing Puerto Rico. They're seeing El Nino. They're seeing seawalls going down. That the commission on adaptation, they're trying to buttress that up. Because now the future is here. And if we don't do something today, what do we have to leave for our future generations? So I see a lot of support funding for training people on renewable energy systems, money for the planning forward, research and development, funding for technology, innovations. So people are now, the legislators are saying, okay, hey, we've got to plan forward. We've got to have some of the resources available in training of our people to be able to deal with and be resilient to all of the kinds of vulnerabilities around us. And if we lose that grid, and that's why the grid is so important, we lose our businesses and our homes and the quality of life. Look up in the morning without any energy in your house. And it's getting colder and colder. It's in my neighborhood. You need your electric blankets sometimes, you know? It's funny. You mentioned these things and the people involved in these things. They've all been through here. They've set up these shows, you know, year after year, month after month, week after week with the players, you know, from every side of the coin, every side of the table, they come through here. And if you really wanted to study energy in the state of Hawaii, just go through our shows. And you've set them all up, so it's really wonderful. So let's talk about what they're doing in the square building right now. I mean, because we know that it's a sausage machine. Sometimes you can put a brilliant bill in there, brilliantly inspired by who knows what. And then it goes, you know, into sausage and it doesn't come out the same way as it went in. So can you give us a little praisey on some of the big ones that are going through? Well, if they change this, and I think it's this RPS, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, they're trying to have a better definition of what's covered under it. And if you can do that and you change from the sale of electricity to the generation, then you start getting at the real heart of what we're trying to do, is reduce fossil fuel use and build up renewable energy. If you get incentives for storage and renewable technologies and some of the resources like wind and geothermal and you help the EVs get up to speed, then you're creating alternatives to fossil fuel. So the eye on the prize is how much can we reduce fossil fuel importation and use. It's not going to be easy and it's long term. So you can't just have a mandate and lose your companies that are using it now. But it's that pathway that I haven't seen anything on the pathway for. What is that plan that brings everybody along and still gets to that goal without just putting it in front of you. You are mandated to do, which businesses don't like to hear. So it's really coming together of all of the people who have an interest or are impacted by that that need to have the conversation and make it something that's doable and not just sounds good. Interestingly enough, the forum and you, you've set the tone of the conversation over a long period of time and it takes place now in the legislature and in the community is a function of that, is a function of the conversations that you've set up in the energy policy forum. And so it's a civil conversation. It's a conversation that looks forward and respects all views and all comers. It's a conversation that's essentially constructive and putting a lot of players together. This is not easy because there are factions and diverse interests and they don't necessarily agree with things. I mean there's a million different positions that are expressed and we as a state we have to find our way down that road. But the conversation is so important. The process is so important to reach the right goal on this. And I think when you say the conversations the way the forum operates I mean we all have our agendas. We all have our differences and what we are stakes but when we come to the forum and the forum is vetted the members are vetted by all the members. So whoever comes to the forum is vetted for their expertise and their interests. They have to bring a different segment of the energy sphere. But they all have to agree that they're going to be collaborative they're going to listen they're going to be bringing their perspective reach consensus and we do not go forward we have consensus. But we have learned over the years because of relations that we don't veto each other. So we didn't want the forum to be a veto kind of thing. So it's talk it through. It's the greater good. Somehow the forum has achieved a sense of the greater good the people involved in the whole tone of it is looking for the greater good which is remarkable. You don't find that very much these days. But let's talk about the ledge and let's talk about where the road is leading. Let me suggest that the big issues of the moment are going to be what we do with solar how government incentivizes and or not how government incentivizes the storage issue because solar and storage are together and whether the storage and solar for that matter are at the homeowner level or at the utility level all of these are questions in play even to the market but probably you need government to get involved. And I think that is one of the areas where government needs to play a more leadership role in this. We see it in a bill that Senator Baker was going to discuss with us on the PUC and what that should look like how they should be what should be their mission or goal how do you have permitting that safeguards the public's interest faster so we can get more projects online faster and do the work that we need to have done in a cost effective way. And you see agencies like DBED being required to be more helpful I guess in permitting I think there was a permitting office previously I don't know if they had funding for staffing but then you help developers who want and have common interest in development working with the utility working with the government and working with I guess finances. You have to achieve that same conversation in government as the reason for It would be good because I think that the permitting takes a long time but why should it take a long time if you have what information you need in order to make the decision and I don't know whether that process has been developed to streamline it so you get the answers you need and you say yay or nay and I don't know if it's that simple but it needs to be faster if we're going to get projects online and attract investment and attract developers willing to take risks it's really because in the end we need investors and entrepreneurs to build these projects including the utility and the utility has been through we can have a few shows just to identify the dynamic of how it's been for them through the life of this period we're talking about and they came away from Nextera and here they are and where are we going with the utility and with the industry I think the positive thing about the utility is now they're not just the utility but they are really a service provider and it has changed their focus in terms of customer driven kinds of activities which I think is like a major switch and it's good and healthy but how do you switch that from being an advocate for the consumer saying okay they want this I've got to go through PUC how can we get this so that we are representing their interest rather than we don't trust you so we're going to make you go through many more hoops and how do we as a state see that every single time you have more and more hours that you have to do getting there it costs money you spend millions I mean I don't know how much the utility spent on the whole Nextera millions and where did it get us not nowhere so can we do something that would cost less on that front end and get us where we want if it's a no a faster no well again it goes to the tenor of the conversation the way people treat each other a little aloha never hurt anybody and I think maybe in a funny way Nextera put us into a better frame of mind and I think we're in a pretty good frame of mind now I think the legislature hopefully will focus on these things this year and the years to come to make it easier to develop energy and especially renewable energy and meet our 100% goals and all that in transportation and in sustainability and I think the utility and the players the entrepreneurs will find hopefully a better environment to use that term where they can actually do stuff without getting stuck in bureaucracy so a lot of this I have to say Sharon at this point here we are in 2018 a lot of this you have cost you have rolled out the carpet for these developments and I think we all owe you something for your gratitude well it's all of us Jay you know that and it's been a fun time because you can actually see progress it's nice when you can see a little even if it's a little steps forward the energy space is so much broader and wider and something else too something you wanted to achieve years ago and I wanted to achieve also it's a level of public awareness I feel that the public state of Hawaii one way or the other one event one controversy or another is now much more aware and informed that's what we want that's what we always want thank you Sharon great to talk to you as always thanks for a lovely time together waiting for Ross thank you Ross Aloha Ross is going to be back next time when we can get her out of her committee Aloha


Hi everyone, thanks for joining me today. My name is Bill Lamey. I'm one of the co-founders of Express Logic and also a program manager now with Microsoft on the Azure RTOS product. It's great to be here today. I have a brief overview of Azure RTOS in conjunction with ST and I guess let's just get started. I guess the first thing to talk about in terms of Azure RTOS is what Azure RTOS means. Azure RTOS is the umbrella name for the runtime products, including the popular ThreadX kernel from Express Logic, also including the middleware, FileX, GUIX, NetX, NetX Duo, and USBX, virtually all of the X's are covered. Anyway, the Azure RTOS name is now the new Microsoft branded name for that collection of runtime products. So just at the very high level, it's the same quality and breadth of service that was there with the Express Logic products before, but just under a new brand name Azure RTOS. What is an RTOS? We'll go quickly over this because this audience is pretty savvy with what an RTOS is, but at the highest level, an RTOS is used to allocate processor time. So the application doesn't have to do it in a big while loop or some other mechanism. When you think of an RTOS, generally you want to think small and fast, something that has a dedicated purpose and something that requires real-time deterministic processing. In most cases, the RTOS is used on a processor that has less than 512 kB of memory, maybe less than 200 megahertz, doesn't require an MMU. That said, there's plenty of applications with Azure RTOS that deviate from that. So there's a ThreadX SMP, for instance, is a full SMP version of ThreadX, and that's run on really high-end processors like a Cortex A53, for instance, that might be quad-core, gigabit processing speed, megabytes of memory. In those particular cases, Azure RTOS is used for the deterministic processing rather than the small footprint. All of that said, typically you'll find Azure RTOS and MCU small constrained devices more than the high-end parts. What do embedded developers want in an RTOS? This varies greatly between different embedded developers. Generally, it's allocating processor time, meeting real-time requirements, fitting into small memory areas, dividing up the application into pieces instead of having everything in one big while loop, and then also the middleware. Having access to file system, network stack, GUI, USB, all of these things are typically what embedded developers want in an RTOS or a runtime solution. According to the 2019 UBM Embedded Developers Survey, these are the top 19 reasons developers chose an RTOS. I circled, circled. I put a red square around all of the real-time or processing requirements, so we have real-time capability, context switch time, scheduling efficiency. Those are more speed-oriented or overhead-oriented. Then the green boxes is memory footprint. Then finally, there's a box on safety. Azure RTOS specializes on industrial functional safety certification. I put the blue box around safety certification. But if you really look at all of these categories in terms of what embedded developers are looking for in an RTOS, really Azure RTOS meets most of them. If not all of them or is best of class in most of them if not all of them. Just to give the audience an idea of what embedded developers have actually said they wanted in RTOS in a survey, the most recent survey I think. As for Azure RTOS, the things to think about with Azure RTOS always small, fast, and safe. On the size side, if you just use the basic scheduling and ThreadX, maybe two threads just relinquishing control between each of them, you're looking at a 2K byte instruction area footprint for Azure RTOS. On the speed side, Azure RTOS typically offers API calls in less than a microsecond and context switching in less than a microsecond. Then on the safety side, there's nothing better than 23 years of field proven usage of an RTOS and Azure RTOS or ThreadX has been in the field since 1997.  We have taken Azure RTOS ThreadX, FileX, GUIX, NetX Duo, and USBX through SILV4, ASIL-D, Medical Class C certification. That means that these products and components are suitable for use in functional safety certification, whether that's automotive, industrial, medical, or anything that needs that level of certification. In addition to the core principles of small, fast, and safe, Azure RTOS is a comprehensive, easy to use solution as well. We have all of these middleware components, in addition to the kernel. Then we also have support for most of the popular embedded architectures and development tools. That combined with the fact that we've created all of these products in-house, we haven't purchased them or accumulated them from other sources. They all have the same look and feel, the documentation looks the same. It's really a totally comprehensive solution. Then lately, since our acquisition, which was about a year and a half ago, since we became part of Microsoft, we focused more on the IoT connectivity, making sure that a device using Azure RTOS can connect to Azure IoT the easiest way possible, and also using the least amount of resources. These general areas are the high-level value of Azure RTOS. Whereas Azure RTOS being used today, well, lots of places. According to VDC research, as of 2017, Azure RTOS was used in 6.2 billion devices worldwide. Most of the devices or a huge chunk of them are in mobile phones, not the core operating system in the mobile phone, obviously, but in peripheral chips around the core operating system. Cellular modem, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, any of the peripheral chips that surround and provide function for the central processor on a typical phone, would be Azure RTOS candidates. But we scale all the way down from small Cortex-M devices and wearables, through medical devices, through home security, home automation, through printers. HP is one of our big customers. Even in some space probes, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter uses Azure RTOS ThreadX in its camera system. We were also in the deep impact of space probes in the camera systems there, too. So virtually everything from really high-deploy devices to deployments of two or three in the space situation. A little drill down in terms of where the 6.2 billion deployments come from, you can see that mobile phones is a huge chunk of that, roughly 3.4 billion. We believe that over time, and especially with the license arrangement with ST, where end customers from using ST parts have a free production license to use Azure RTOS, all the components in their designs, we believe that all the other numbers will start evening out a little bit more. Traditionally, we've been kind of heavy on parts that were super intensive and required the very best RTOS there was out there, customers willing to pay money for it other than the free solutions. So now with the Azure RTOS being free, effectively, it's certainly in the context of customers using ST parts, we believe that these numbers were gonna even out a little bit more. And I should mention too that the 6.2 billion number is as of 2017. The run rate for that, the number of deployments per year, extrapolating out to like 2020 today would put that over 7 billion easily. We need to go back and get that refreshed, obviously. Azure RTOS system components. So Azure RTOS, as I mentioned earlier, is the umbrella name for all of the former ExpressLogic components, the runtime components and also host components. And that includes the kernel ThreadX, the FatFileSystemFileX, the USBX stack, which provides a host and device USB support, and then NetX and NetX Duo, our TCP IP stacks, and then GUIX and GUIX Studio and Tracex. GUIX Studio and Tracex are host tools used to help developers using the runtime tools. GUIX Studio is a graphics design tool that runs on the host, where you can do most of your UI design, and then when you're ready to go, you press a button and that'll generate some C codes that can be imported into an embedded project where the GUIX 2D graphics runtime engine is running. And that way you can do most of your heavy work in terms of your UI design on Windows, system and not have to do the nitty gritty programming actually on the device side. Tracex is a graphical event viewer for real-time events that happen on a ThreadX based system. So you would enable tracing on ThreadX and then enable it and then once you're ready at either a crash or a breakpoint, whenever you wanted to look at what has happened in the system, you would export the trace buffer up to a host and then you could graphically view that kind of like a logic analyzer, but system events in terms of the RTOS on Windows. And that will show you all context switches, all API calls, when threads are resumed, when threads suspend, basically everything that's happening in the system is represented graphically. Tracex is always interesting to me because every time I look at a trace buffer, I see something I didn't expect. Playing computer in my head versus reality is always kind of a fun checksum to have. So I'll go through a brief overview of each of the Azure RTOS components, starting with ThreadX. As I mentioned before, the minimal footprint for ThreadX is 2K bytes and we're looking at sub-microsecond processing through the API set, SILV4, ASLD, Medical Class C, Functional Safety Certification. And then ThreadX has some advanced features that aren't found in other RTOSs. These include preemption threshold, which is kind of like a two-priority system where threads have a priority when they're scheduled and they have another priority once they're scheduled. And you can use this to reduce context switches. There's even academic research that shows how you can use preemption threshold to guarantee a schedulability within a set of threads. Anyway, it's kind of a neat little technology that is unique to ThreadX. We also have event chaining. Everything that you, all the products, including ThreadX, have auto-scaling. And auto-scaling is basically the idea that only what the application uses comes into the final image. So if you don't use, for instance, in ThreadX, if you don't use event flags, they don't appear. If you don't use byte memory pools, they don't appear. But if you use counting semaphores, they automatically are brought into the image at link time. We also have an add-on component to ThreadX called ThreadX Modules. And ThreadX Modules allow the application to build a separately linked and located piece of application code that contains one or more threads. And that application code, that module, is created in a position-independent code and position-independent data format. So it can be basically loaded anywhere in the address space and executed. And the nice thing about that too is that for parts that have an MPU or MMU, we can put a memory protection around that module code. So it's a way of kind of getting a lightweight process inside of what is a traditional RTOS kernel. And then finally, a consistent APIs, extensive out-of-box examples. There's lots of developers that have already used ThreadX out in the marketplace. So that's a quick overview of ThreadX. Moving along to FileX. FileX is our FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, and XFAT file system. The minimal footprint for FileX is around nine K bytes. And it too has the functional safety certification like ThreadX. On the advanced feature set, FileX has an optional fault tolerant mode where we will journal file system activities. And then if there's a power loss or interruption of any sort on the next boot, we can figure out whether to either discard what was going on or complete what was going on and basically keep the file system intact. So there's no ability to corrupt the file system on a power loss or reset or some other system event where things don't complete in the file system. We have extensive performance advantages in FileX.  So depending on how much memory you have, you can get a lot more performance out of the file system. We have the ability to do a pre-allocation of clusters. And we also have an add-on component to FileX called LevelX, which is a flashware leveling technology. And that operates on NOR and NAND flash parts. And again, FileX auto-scales. So only what you use of the file system comes into the image. And again, it's all written from the ground up by our engineering team. So it has the same API, same documentation layout. And then there's a good amount of out-of-box examples. GUI-X is our 2D graphics runtime engine. And it has a companion part on the Windows side where you can do your Windows design using a Windows application and it generates code that runs on the target. Basically about 13K bytes for a minimal system running on the target. It's all pure C, no C++. So it's a pure C GUI package, even though the concept of widgets and everything is very object-oriented like, it's still written in C. Again, it's a CIL-4, ACIL-D Medical Class C certified and has extensive widget sets. And it scales automatically like ThreadX and the other products. And again, consistent API because it's all written from the ground up by our engineering team. Oh, I should also mention that GUI-X does have the Chromart integration as well. So it's integrated with the accelerators from ST. NetX Duo is in terms of the cloud side of things is a very important piece of our equation because it's indeed the TCPIP stack along with the security protocols like TLS and MQTT that gets you the base cloud connectivity. In terms of size, for a minimal cloud connectivity, NetX Duo comes in around 50K bytes. And that is, that's using ThreadX, NetX Duo, the TLS stack and MQTT. And with that, you can make a direct connection to Azure IoT Hub. And that's about as bare bones as you can get. And we think that's the best of class in the industry in terms of getting a small device to connect to the cloud. In terms of performance, NetX Duo is a zero copy implementation so we can get near wire speed and at the same time using minimal CPU usage. And again, NetX Duo is still for ASL-D Medical Class C Functional Safety Certified. We've also taken the TLS stack and the software crypto library through security certification, EAL-4 Plus and FIPS 140-2. And just you can see on the block diagram that there's lots and lots of components with NetX Duo, things that you don't normally see in a typical embedded RTOS TCP IP stack like maybe MDNS, DNSSD, PTP and so on. So it's a really rich set of components, also a rich set of cloud connectivity components and security components. IPsec is another thing that you don't generally see in a lot of embedded TCP IP stacks. This is just a diagram showing the cloud connectivity pieces. You'll see Azure RTOS ThreadX and basically the TCP IP stack with IPv4 and IPv6 support, TLS, MQTT. That gives you the base connectivity to like Azure IoT Hub but if you want easier connectivity we also have integration with the embedded CSDK and with that you get all sorts of other things including the integration with Azure Security Center which is now called Azure Defender. And then there's also plug and play support and all the neat things that you find, all the neat services on the cloud side but we make them easier through the embedded CSDK on the device side. And all that's integrated and has APIs that are similar to other Azure RTOS APIs. Azure RTOS USBX is our USB host and device stack. You'll see a fairly small footprint, lots and lots of class supports, one of the richest class supports of USB stacks available. It's going through the SILV4-ACLD Medical Class C certification today. And again, it's like all the other products in terms of consistent API, extensive out-of-box examples and device host controller integration. I mentioned this a little bit before in the NetX Duo section and then earlier before in terms of the presentation. After acquisition, the former ExpressLogic team now a Microsoft team has put a lot of work into making the IoT connectivity that much easier from the device perspective. And the key component in that is Azure IoT embedded SDK. And that's where all of the magic happens in terms of integrating with Azure Defender, plug and play support and just making things easier with a nice set of APIs that look like Azure RTOS APIs. And all of this is done with a kind of a minimal footprint mindset as well. The new embedded SDK, for instance, is something that ranges from five to 10 K bytes in general in terms of instruction size. So it's not a bulky big thing for embedded devices any longer. And so now you can really leverage the ease of use to Azure IoT without suffering a huge memory penalty. I mentioned Azure Defender. This integration is really encapsulated inside of the embedded SDK, but Azure Defender leverages the security capabilities of Azure. So we can, so just as an example, when it's enabled by the device manufacturer through the SDK, we can send telemetry information to the cloud that has like IP addresses, for instance. And then Azure Defender can analyze those against Blacklist and see if, for instance, there's something that the device is connecting to that isn't a good idea. And then it'll alert the appropriate folks on the cloud side to let people know that there's a potential security problem. So all of this integration is easy to use and basically just requires an enable API on the embedded SDK side. So we're real super excited about the relationship with ST. Prior to Acquisition Express Logic was a premier partner to ST and certainly now with Microsoft, we're strengthening that relationship, many, many fold over. We already have support for most of the core architectures on the STMCU and MPU family. We also support many of the IDEs, the, you know, anything from STM32Q by DE to IR to Kyle. And then we also are doing all sorts of integration on the cloud side of things. You can find some of this sample applications on GitHub today. We'll be sharing that link a little bit later in this presentation, but there's sample applications for ST.  So in addition to what we have on GitHub today for free access, all of Azure RTOS and all of the integration will be available directly inside the tools themselves. So it'll be all ready to go pre-integrated, ready to run. So there will be virtually no effort, you know, in terms of putting together any kind of Azure RTOS application. And then of course, as I mentioned earlier, you know, we, ST has basically purchased a license. So all ST customers on the STM32 MCUs and MPUs will have a free license to use Azure RTOS. So it's kind of like the best of all worlds, all pre-integrated, you know, down the road. And then freely licensed. So there's no possible obstacles in terms of using Azure RTOS and ST parts. And you get to leverage all of the commercial grade Azure RTOS components and certification that we've had for many, many years. And this is the Azure RTOS GitHub page. I mentioned briefly the samples repo. That's where you can go to find pre-made turnkey zip file samples for Azure RTOS. And then you can also see all the other components. The full source code is there on GitHub. GitHub is applications or developers are able to take what's on GitHub today. They're able to develop with it freely, explore freely. It's all full source code. All of our products are there. And then in addition, you know, as we go further with ST, all of this will be actually incorporated inside the ST tools.  So with that, you know, we think that this combined solution with ST is gonna basically really speed up time to market for our mutual customers and then leverage the benefits of Azure RTOS. The reliable performance, the small footprint and all of this will, you know, basically reduce risk too. There's no, you're not gonna be developing with an RTOS only to find out at the end of the project that it's too slow. So now you're gonna have ability to get industrial grade Azure RTOS, certified Azure RTOS and field proven Azure RTOS into the designs, you know, right away without any worry, without any risk. And then of course, for Azure embedded designs start migrating to the IoT, which they naturally will. You'll have the easiest path to Azure IoT with Azure RTOS. Here's a slide with some resources. Azure RTOS on the Microsoft website is at azure.com slash RTOS and GitHub, the GitHub repose, you can either search for Azure RTOS on GitHub or just go to github.com slash Azure RTOS and you can find all the documentation on the web as well. I think I'm probably getting close to my time budget. So I wanna thank you for sharing your time with me today. Hopefully that was helpful and there'll be more deep dives coming for Azure RTOS. Thank you very much.


I think I spent the fewest number of days in Israel of all the people and that's, again, very circumstantial. However, let me correct myself, if I hadn't found the subject the first trip, I don't think I would have come back. I think it would have been, no, I didn't work. So it was just really fortuitous that it happened that way. Because I don't feel obligated to come to the truth about Israel through photography or the truth about Vancouver through photography or Prague or anywhere else. I only want to come to the truth of the picture I'm making and that can be anywhere. Frederick first contacted me I think in 2009 or even it could have been 10. I think it was 9. On the recommendation of a couple of mutual friends. I don't do commissions or I don't do work on requests. I'm not good at it. And I just go with the person who is talking to me at the time. And so he didn't have to convince me. He just asked me, invited me to come to Israel and see what I can do. He also made it clear that there was no obligation. There was no agenda, which is something that people sometimes say and don't really mean. But in his case I believed it. And that we weren't obliged to prove anything to anyone. And we were being invited simply because of what he felt we might be able to do. I shoot film. I don't shoot digital. So I had to shoot film and develop it in the middle of the desert. And we found a way to create a film developing lab at our hotel. So we developed our film every day. And we really settled into an excellent tiny little production facility. So in some ways I was really a foreigner, an alien. I didn't really get to know Israel very well. But I believe that the picture itself has capacity to know things we don't know. And we don't have to have knowledge. Sometimes we just have to have eyes, see something and take advantage of it. And the picture will tell us things that I don't know and I don't think I need to know. I want viewers to have an experience. My work is experiential. It doesn't have ideas in it necessarily or if it does they're carried by the experience. And I think my pictures as art are aesthetic. That is they are about their own beauty and therefore their own artistic-ness. And I think the experience of that is the experience of enjoyment. It's a complicated form of enjoyment. You enjoy what you're seeing. It's exciting you in some complex way. And that's going to be caused in this case by the way the subject looks. The way it's been rendered. And I think our compassion for the subject or our empathy for the subject isn't ignited by the subject directly because it's very difficult to be that involved in things that are far away and complicated that you don't really understand people you don't know and you're not related to. And there's so many subjects. But if you're carried away somehow by the enjoyment of the thing you're seeing that changes your relation to that subject, whatever it might be or it even invents your relation to that subject which may never have existed before. And then of course that means that once your relation to that subject has changed then something to do with your relation to the world has changed even in some indefinable way. So take as a model the subject is something you never cared about or even never even noticed. Now you've noticed it, enjoyed it. Now somehow you care about it in the way you didn't in the past. Now you go away from the picture as a slightly even microscopically different person and that we always hope for. That's one of the old ideas about art is that it makes you in some indefinable way another person than you were before you experienced the art. If the art has goodness in it, artistic goodness then there's a kind of goodness that you've experienced and becomes part of you somehow and people hope that's the truth. Thank you.


What's up everybody, Jason here for jaskiescasebrakes.com, another Immaculate 3 box break sold out. This is picker team number 4 with a random number block help here with the 4-downers, Titans, Chiefs, Bills, Cowboys, Bucks. You get a piece of these teams for a fraction of the price you would have paid for all of them. And of course, every spot gets a random number from Zerothin and I. If there is any hits, we're going to distribute them via a serial number break. You go by the first number on the left side of the serial number dash. There's some examples there in case you guys need some. Here's a dice roll it. Let's roll it. We got a 1 and a 6, 7 times. Good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven times. Allen, done to Steve. All right, seven times here, seven times there, zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven done to five. All right, Allen, you have seven. Steve Herrick before Eugene with zero, Ed with two, Justin with three, Thomas with eight, Ed with nine, Steve Herrick with one, Allen with six and Steve with five. All right, guys. So again, in a separate video, I got to do one more R&B randomizing then we can bring it open, guys. So good luck.