Next question is from G.D. Penna. You've all talked about how stretching as a form of working out is ineffective or even detrimental, but exercises like the pigeon pose seem kind of like a stretch. What differentiates priming movements like these from stretches? Did we not address, did we, I thought I addressed this maybe on the, on the question, on the webinar. Oh, is that where, or the IG, somebody said this, I'm like, no, oh, you're right. That was on the webinar, somebody brought this up. So what make, okay, so what differentiates, okay, let me put it this way, I'll give you an analogy, right? Justin gives me $5 or I take $5 from him. What differentiates one being theft versus one being him giving me the money? All about the intention. Same thing with priming movements. Pigeon stretch would be me getting into pigeon pose and just relaxing and allowing the muscles to stretch. By the way, there's nothing wrong with static stretching if it's done properly. There's actually, that actually can be a part of a good mobility practice. Well, it's programmed in the end of prime, right? That's right. So we program static stretching. What's been done wrong with static stretching for so long. And the studies are conclusive on this and we know now that we, and we weren't doing this before yet. We still have trainers that aren't privy to this. And that's static stretching before you go into weight training is a bad idea. That's not a good idea, but that doesn't mean that static stretching is bad. It just means that's not the place to do it.  Used simply doing it actively, like in a mobility move, is different. You're not relaxing the muscle. You're activating it. It's the whole active versus passive, parasympathetic versus sympathetic. What state are you trying to place your body into?  And so this priming type of stretch is really trying to activate everything and really get your body to be familiar with that position, but also have strength to manipulate your body out of that position, to be firm in that position. And so really being able to recruit muscles while in these certain poses is everything. Right, so if you're confused, I'm gonna try and make it as simple as possible. So intention is what makes something priming versus just a static stretch, okay? So here's what it looks like when you're doing pigeon pose and you're doing a static stretch.  What makes it priming? You're in the same pose, here's the difference.  The difference is I'm sucking myself in the stretch and I'm pushing myself out of the stretch. I'm activating the shortened muscles and I'm activating the lengthened muscles. I'm literally tensing both sides for reps and that's the difference between priming and static. Now, what's the difference in the way it works the body? Priming is activating those muscles. It's connecting my central nervous system to them in different ranges of motion. Static stretching is literally trying to turn off my central nervous system, getting it to chill out so I can achieve a greater range of motion. Static stretching is great post workout. Priming is awesome before your workout. That's the big difference and if you prime before your workout you have improved performance, better muscle activation, you can hit lagging body parts better, better mobility and better stability and control. If you do static stretching at the end of your workout, you improve recovery, improve passive ranges of motion. You get the CNS to calm down so things can recover a little faster. So that's the big difference. Now, if you're not educated on that and you just see someone, they look a little different but if you don't know the difference you might think, what's the difference? Why they look exactly the same? It's intention. Intention makes them very, very different on how the body responds. Both these, all of these including foam rolling are all included in Maps Prime and we program it to teach you how you should do this yourself. That's the idea of every program that we've done is not only to take you through this stuff but also teach you like how you would do this for yourself. Apply the concepts the right way.


Hey guys, Jeremy here and I'll be talking about a movie that has greatly divided fans of both Star Wars and movies in general, The Last Jedi. Despite the title of this video, know that this is the first in a series of videos I plan on doing. While this video will be talking about several issues I had with The Last Jedi, I will also be doing a video following talking about what I found to be so good and if somewhat awesome with the film. One big thing I want to get out of the way with right off the bat though before we start this is I didn't hate the movie. There are points I enjoyed and there are points that extremely frustrated me and that's what this series will hopefully clear up. I am not like nor do I condone the actions of certain few who have been souring the entire discussion this film is generating. I'm talking about the people who like the ones who want Rotten Tomatoes shut down again. Really guys, taking the Batman v Superman butt hurt response are the people who are assigned a petition to remove Last Jedi from the Star Wars canon. Are you actually serious guys? Have you seen the prequels lately? What these guys are creating in fact however is a grouping of anyone who didn't like the movie or had issues with the movie with the people who absolutely despise it and hate anything about it. Instead of there being a clear divide and an open ground for sound discussion and debate it's almost as bad as the political divide in the United States with people just outright shouting distasteful and hateful things at each other. There is nothing to be gained from this so know that while I did have issues with the film I certainly didn't hate it and I definitely feel that this is a monument in Star Wars canon for just the amount of discussion this film has generated. Also one more side note, I don't care if any of these issues are going to be explained in the novelization that will be coming. You can't use the well if you read the novels Halo 5 excuse Disney.  No offense meant to you Alan Dean Forrester. You didn't write the movie after all. That was Jar Jar. But now without further ado, here are the 5 reasons why I feel The Last Jedi is a bad movie. Number one, the opening crawl means nothing. Starting off with something minor but it has to be said this crawl doesn't mean anything. Besides the one sentence stating where the movie is starting it serves no other purpose than a rudimentary previously on the last episode of Star Wars. Now I know these crawls have played that purpose in the past somewhat but they also tell us about what has happened in between the movies however there really isn't anything to be said about this as the movie takes place mere hours after the end of The Force Awakens. Now if this was a choice by the creative heads of Lucasfilms then I can understand why The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson had no other choice. He was given his plate and he had to eat it. However if this was his choice it starts off the list of things that he did that were against the formula of Star Wars. Now whether you agree or disagree with his choices you can't deny he did things that people weren't going to expect and the opening crawl is definitely one of them. Now the crawl has been a placeholder in Star Wars history for a reason. It tells us what's going on or it catches us up on what has happened in between the movies. Each film in the past has had a space of time sometimes consisting of years or decades ergo the crawl's purpose. Take The Force Awakens for example everyone and myself included were glued to every word every syllable of that crawl because of the 30 years that had passed since the return of the Jedi. The crawl isn't just a recap but a creative and nostalgic means of further expanding the Star Wars universe. The crawl in The Last Jedi doesn't do any of these things. It just states everything that happened in the final half of The Force Awakens. It's very bland and very vague with no extra add-ons or anything to build up what might yet be to come. A minor note sure but when something this deterring appears right from the get-go you can understand some frustration this film has created. Number 2. The Bombers. Now before you start smashing all caps into the comments know that I understand that Star Wars isn't about the realism of space. If anything it's one of the reasons why I love Star Wars. Sure there are shows like Battlestar Galactica or Firefly which were more science based with little to no noise ever heard in space but that's not why we're watching Star Wars. We go for the bombastic explosions, the pew pew pew of the X-Wings, the scream of the TIE fighters. One of my favorite things in this film is that you can hear the Star Destroyers coming out of hyperspace on the planet. The massive boom sums up the power of the Force Order in a nutshell. Huge, powerful, loud, tyrannical, all in one shot. So know that the opening space battle to me was actually pretty awesome. So what I'm saying is I'll forgive the idea of Poe taking out all the guns on the dreadnought by himself. He's an adult pilot and I'm happy to finally see someone do a 360 about turn in space. I'm fine with the ideas of bombers in space. We have TIE bombers after all, sure they're more so firing a cluster of energy downwards rather than a physical bomb dropping. But that's alright. I'm pretty much okay with everything except the fact that all these pilots are breathing in an open environment. I can forgive almost anything this movie throws at me space wise. I'll even forgive the bounding cannon shots later on in the movie. Bounding cannon shots in space. I'll forgive that but when people are blatantly breathing in an open environment in space that's just one thing I cannot forgive. Now if the scene simply had say a barrier or a force field that the bombs passed through that would have been fine. But as we see Rose's sister reaches through the open bay door to grab the device as it passes down past her.  Either that or it's just really badly edited. Hell I would have even taken a simpler route. Just give them a space helmet for space. Literally just have them in helmets with breathing apparatuses and that would have been fine. Again this seems like a tiny nitpick and as stated the Star Wars universe is definitely not known for following the laws of physics or space logic in general. But when such basic things like breathing in bloody space are looked over it makes me wonder why Leia couldn't have just hung around in space for the rest of the movie.  And that's why I cannot let it stand. Number three pose punishment and lesson. Now first off I'm not disagreeing with the idea of Poe having a story arc in this film. I like the idea of Poe going through some character development as he really was just a side character in The Force Awakens with very little to him except for blowing up the whole Starkiller base.  Either way I like that Poe had an arc. I do not however agree with how it was executed.  Now yes he did disobey orders and his arc is to learn when to fight and when to flee. When to fight for the resistance and when to and I still hate the cheesiness of this line. Be the spark that lights the fire that will burn down the first order. What I disagree with however is how Johnson executed the sequence. First off this is definitely not a run of the mill idea. There was some planning put into it. Leia and Poe discussed some means of counter offensive as she isn't surprised with his success of taking out the AA guns on the dreadnought. But then she decides to have everyone pull back to make their escape. Poe disagrees and cuts off communications with her. They continue the run. All the bombers are destroyed but the dreadnought is brought down. But when they get back it looked as though it was a big no-no. I don't know about you Leia but there are casualties and war. You have proceeded to a much worse loss as a new hope, empire and return to the Jedi. So I don't know why she looks as though this was such a grievous loss. If you aren't following me here's some math. There were seven bombers and each bomber had three pilots so that makes 21 pilots. So along with the seven bombers lost that makes about 28 losses. Include all the X-wings lost that makes about what 40 losses all together. Now let's take into account the loss of a single massive dreadnought. This thing is a small town and clearly one of the most powerful starships in the First Order's arsenal. So I am going to take an average guess of about 10,000 personnel. This would include commanders, pilots, ground troopers and others. Now let's put into account the idea of spacecraft on it including fighters, transports, bombers, etc. So let's add another 500. Then let's include all the Landcraft and these are including ATSTs, ATATs and others. So add another 500. So on average that's a loss of over 11,000 First Order units. Now called me old fashioned, but that's a butt whooping if I ever saw one. That one bomber just committed a mass murder on a galactic scale. So why do I bring this up? Why am I looking into this so much with the numbers and everything? Well, let me ask you this. Did any of you feel that what Poe did was wrong? Obviously he disobeyed orders, but do you feel that what he did was actually for the greater good? That's how I felt. It's not every day. Well, I actually knew Hope and Force Awakens would disagree that you get a KD count of 275 to one. What would have worked better in my opinion and would have helped solidify the lesson the film was trying to push was if the bombing run had only crippled the dreadnought are better yet failed entirely. But obviously Disney wouldn't have wanted the good guys to get their asses handed to them right off the bat, even though that's exactly what happened at the beginning of Empire. See, I feel the lesson of knowing when to run and when to fight and when to be a true hero to the resistance in keeping the fire burning would have been better illustrated if Poe's attack had been nowhere near successful. He would have felt broken, possibly even hesitant to try something on that scale again, or the film could have just kept with the same angle that they were went with and it would have still made more sense to his character. He would be wanting to right a wrong and avenge the loss of falling comrades. This would have made more sense to his thinking during the skiff charge at the end of the movie when he calls a retreat. I just personally feel that due to the absolute victory of the bombing run, the weight of the lesson isn't as solid as it could have been. It didn't help either that the character forcing the lesson on Poe was a complete imbecile, but that's coming up later. I did like that Rian Johnson actually told a tale against the norm of Star Wars. That being a brave and fearless captain sometimes isn't everything that you need it to be. Sometimes it is a braver and wiser thing to flee and live to fight another day. I just don't agree with the execution of this lesson. Also, considering how slow those bombers come out of nowhere, there's no way that they didn't see what was going on. Number four, the entire concept of the chase between the resistance and the first order is broken. So for this one, I'm gonna use a whiteboard. So I forewarn you, my drawing is awful, but my point will still be clear. There's so many obvious ways around this issue that either fans who love this movie are willing to look over such a serious flaw or they don't care. But for me, this is one of the worst parts of the movie. After the bombing run, the resistance is on the run from the first order, which includes several Star Destroyers and Snook's massive capital ship. And the resistance only has one large capital ship with several small frigates. The resistance has figured out that they can't jump to lightspeed again because the first order has a lightspeed tracking McGuffin tool. That will be brought up, believe me. So their only option is to keep going forward, but for the first order can't blow them up because the resistance ships are lighter and faster. Again, not gonna go into the idea of something being lighter in space. No friction, but whatever. So the whole idea of the scenario is that supposedly as long as the resistance ships keep going forward, they will stay out of the first order's cannon range until they run out of fuel. No one saw any problem with this. I have so many issues. I have subcategories for this. Hey, the shields are impervious as long as they are far away. What happened to the concept of shields in Star Wars? We've always heard in space movies with shields being at 70% or something like that. So why didn't this happen with the resistance capital ships? They were being plugged by bounding cannon shots for over 15 hours. We see that they are making contact almost every time we cut back to Poe and Vice Admiral Dufus. So why are the shields in no danger? There's no explanation for this. No reason why the shields are impervious. They just never talk about it and hope the audience doesn't think about it either. B, what happened to all the fighters on the Star Destroyers? We just saw all the damage that Kylo Ren and two TIE fighters did to the resistance capital ship destroying the Hanger Bay and blasting Leia into space. So why doesn't the first order just send everything they have at it?  Sure, they would have lost a few fighters but the Hanger Bay is destroyed. There aren't any fighters to repel the attack. And with all the Star Destroyers following them, there clearly would be about 1,000 TIE fighters just waiting to go and blow up the last of the resistance hierarchy. I remember people mumbling this into the theater on opening night. So clearly this was an extremely obvious option that once again, Reem Johnson just hopes the audience doesn't think about. C, why don't they just light speed jump in the transports? Now this might be a stretch but consider this. We know that X-wings and other basic fighter craft have light speed capabilities. It seems every form of space vehicle has light speed.  So why don't they do that right off the bat? Fuel up the transports and then jump to light speed. Each ship going in different directions with a final position for everyone to eventually meet up at. They never specifically say that these transports don't have light speed capability. However, who would build a ship, a transport no less without the ability for light speed.  Now you could argue that splitting up the resistance would have been a bad idea for sparking the fire of hope or some other bullshit, but what is a better idea?  It's not like the first order could track all of them. They even said that the ships have cloaking technology. Use it to get some space, then jump in all different directions. This is such a bloody side idea that this isn't even one of my main criticisms of stupidity for the scenario, but thinking about it, it's a pretty sound idea. D, and the most obvious one, why don't the Star Destroyers just light speed, jump ahead of them? Probably the most obvious is why didn't the first order just light speed, jump ahead of them?   So why don't they just have one or a few break off and jump away with the intention of jumping back ahead of the resistance ship and cornering them? Could have made for an interesting scenario, watching all these ships break off for a mysterious reason only to have them reappear in front of them. Now there really isn't a way that the resistance could have gotten out of that, but if I could literally have thought of that within the first 30 seconds of this chase starting, I know I'm not the only one who thought this. The absolute blame simplicity of this idea kind of angers me that Rean Johnson let this slide. I would have rather had them do a rerun of the Battlestar Galactic episode number 33 where the human beings are being followed by the Cylons who have to keep jumping to a new location every 33 minutes because the Cylons are following them. That storyline makes way more sense than this garbage. The whole time you kept on thinking there was this traitor anger that was going to eventually come up, so it would have made way more sense than this MacGuffin tracking device. It would have made the Vice Admiral Holdo's extremely ridiculous lack of command procedures make more sense and this entire scenario wouldn't have been able to be broken by basic logic.  Number five, Vice Admiral Holdo. Where to begin with this woman? Now, I like Laura Dern as an actress. For most of you, you'll probably recognize her as Ellie Sattler from Jurassic Park. You might also recognize her as the same character in the third film where she got shafted. As an actress, I don't mind her. From what I've read, she seems like a pretty alright person and she had a cute moment with BB-8 during filming of the movie. But whoa, is her Holdo character awful? Literally a terrible character. Every aspect of her character is hypocritical, ignorant, and downright daft. In The Last Jedi, after their delay comes back from her Superman spacewalk and is recovering in the Med Bay, Vice Admiral Holdo is introduced as the new tempo commander of the Resistance. She then gives a speech about holding on to hope, telling everyone to stay at their stations and may the Force be with them. Which, by the way, they copy and pasted that a few more times into her script.  Poe, understandably, asks her what's the plan. She immediately degrades him, calling him a hotshot, and announces that she doesn't like him and his actions and doesn't give him squat. Remember this for later, by the way. Now, yes, Poe had been demoted, but he still had a reasonable question. What was the plan? But she doesn't tell him it. In fact, she doesn't seem to tell anyone other than possibly the lady who announced her in, and that's only from assumption. She, for absolutely no reason other than create an unnecessary threat of tension and drama, gives Bupkiss about what the plan to do is.  Now, some people have defended her actions saying that soldiers should follow their commander's orders and that her actions are part of Poe's lesson. As said before, I am not against Poe learning a lesson and getting a character arc. I am, however, against it being carried out in an absolutely moronic fashion. Why doesn't she tell anyone anything at about an extremely simple plan? We're going to an old rebel-based planet where we will sneak off the transports undetected while the main ship in the first order passed by. Boom, that was one sentence. So how is that so hard to say? She tells them to hold on to hope?  That's not holding on to hope. That's not even blind hope. That's outright fanatical loyalty thinking there. For example, do you think Eisenhower just told the Allied forces prior to D-Day to hold on to hope and get on those boats and head towards France? No, there was so much micro-planning in every detail. The forces knew the plans because that's what a leader does. You tell them what the plan is. Sherpa was demoted, but clearly he isn't the only one who was concerned about the lack of orders. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had a fellow group of muneers at the end. They weren't demoted, so why didn't she tell them? Even when he finds out that she's fueling the transports, with what fuel, by the way, I thought they were running on fumes, she still refuses to tell them anything even though the situation is clearly dire and the resistance are in need of something more to hold on to other than how cool your hair may look, lady. In an interview with the AV club, Dern described her character as, willing to look at the bigger picture and sacrifice for the good of the whole, end quote.  It's because of her actions that Poe, Finn, and Rose go behind her back and try to get something done.  If she had simply told them the plan in the first place, the mission for the hacker would have never happened. The whole crisis would have been averted.  And going back to my point about Poe and his supposed lesson, how is he supposed to learn anything when the person supposedly teaching him about the errors of his ways is doing so by enacting errors that are far worse than his? This isn't a two wrongs makes a right situation.  And remember how I told you to remember her initial remarks about Poe? Well, when Leia conveniently wakes up and stuns Poe, Holdo comments about his roguish actions, but then says she likes him.    And to add even more salt on the wound, she's the one who gets to go out on an incredible high note with a light speed jump sacrifice. This is, of course, after half the resistance has blown to kingdom come. What were you doing, lady? Writing a galactic blog about how you really showed men how terrible of a commander you are?  You robbed us of a fitting end to the one of the most enduring memable characters in Star Wars history, Rean Johnson.  Now, from what I've gathered from reviewers both for and against this movie is that she is supposed to continue to represent the power of women in the new updated Star Wars film series. Now, I can understand and appreciate that.  Look at movies like Jupiter Ascending, for example. However, Star Wars seems to have taken it to the extreme and just said that women are the best because they are women. Look at Rey, for example. She is a stereotype definition Mary Sue if you ever wanted to see one. However, this time, the ridiculous female character type goes to Holdo because despite all of this, all this bullshit she causes, all the unnecessary drama, the seemingly SJW resistance leader causes, all the moronic and completely idiotic decision she makes or doesn't make in truth, she is still portrayed as the right one and a strong female character who men like Poe should just listen to. Now, I will try and say this as politely as I can.  The whole point of character development in films is that they are defined by their flaws more so than their strengths and throughout the movie, their journey is to overcome those flaws. Not many movies get this right as it is easier said than done but when it is done correctly, you have a good character on your hands.  If anything, she goes against the idea completely.  Now, again, I'm not against the idea of female empowerment, female characters, et cetera. I love characters like Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor who did exactly what it seems no current filmmaker can do. Make a strong female character who proves herself not only to the obnoxious world of men but also to herself and the audience. Sure Wonder Woman was great but when I think of great female characters I will always think of Ellen Ripley.  So there you go, those are my five main reasons why I thought The Last Jedi was the worst. It just seems like Rian Johnson made notes throughout the entire script saying logic doesn't exist in my movie. I hate to rag on the guy as he is one of my favorite filmmakers. I love Looper and Brick and thought Brother's Bloom was an enjoyable time and I like that Disney took a chance on a guy who wasn't in the norm of making blockbuster films and gave him a shot at the director's chair but when a story so littered with plot holes makes it to the final stage and no one in the room had a single brain cell to point out the glaring absence of logic throughout this movie, I cannot forgive that. But now that this video has ended, the table will be flipped. While I found some parts of The Last Jedi incredibly stupid, there are some parts I found pretty good and even downright amazing. So stay tuned for that video to come. And I know I didn't get all the points that people have pointed out about this movie so here's a list of all the other brain dead parts I could think of and here's some cheesy music to go along with it. ["The Last Jedi"]


We're already a vulnerable population. Imposing this amount of pressure on a community is going to magnify those vulnerabilities. We live along the highway of tears. We're already concerned about our women. Research shows that when a mind or a big development comes in that it's usually women that are impacted. There's intergenerational trauma issues that are existing in the community. But having the mind there is really exacerbating all of these existing issues. And it's making a lot of challenges more difficult. But if women have given this jump to the public and we're facing the work outside of the house, the barons have not made the way reciprocal or the opposite. The women are the nurturers of the resources as well as the family. So with lack of food and water supply, so that's an additional burden for the Indigenous women. We have a way of helping one another, which we cannot practice anymore because we don't have lands. 90% of the women that we talked to did say that the mind had clearly created problems in the community. It's contributing to a lot of family breakdown through both jealousy and uncomfort with spending long times apart. The scheduling also means that children are being unsupervised while their mother is at the mind. This is a community of over 3,000 people and they have one daycare that has about 25 spots. There are a lot of people who are still unemployed, but now the people who are employed are making a lot of money. So there's been a very dramatic increase in inequality. Also, the higher incomes are enabling existing addictions. So alcohol abuse is on the rise, bootlegging is on the rise, especially with people bringing alcohol and drugs through the mind site. Work-first data shows that new women are mostly in entry-level gender positions such as cooks, cleaners. The benefits have been very unequal in the community. Average income has increased greatly for men, increased by over 50%, but women haven't seen that increase. The unequal benefits is creating divisions in the community that weren't there before. In Canada, 3% of the mining workers are women. In Quebec, it's one percent. So what kind of jobs are you saying the women that you're bringing to their communities? How will they say yes to mining when they don't see the benefit, but they see the problems?


Live from San Francisco, California, it's the Cube at VMworld 2014. Brought to you by VMware, Cisco, EMC, HP, and Nutanix. Now here are your hosts, Dave Vellante and Stu Miniman. Good afternoon from Moscone Center in San Francisco. This is the Cube. The Cube goes live to the events. We extract the signal from the noise. This is our fifth year doing VMworld. So we're here at VMworld 2014 in San Francisco. Peter Kutze is here, along with my co-host, Stu Miniman. We're going to talk cloud. Peter is the general manager of the cloud business unit at EMC. Peter, thanks for coming on the Cube. Thank you for having me. You're welcome. So tell us about the cloud business unit, relatively new. Tell us about the organization. Yeah, sure. Think about it as almost about a 12 to 16 month journey of kind of looking at the way our customers and partners consume our technology along with Federation technology along with industry technology. And what we realized is we were really forcing our customers into being integration engineering shops when they really should be focused on what I would call, you know, IT services and IT as a service and any type of like X as a service on top of that, desktops, et cetera. And so we formed a business unit that operates much like a product business unit within EMC that has all the cross functional representation and goes through our normal go to market business readiness processes. And so when you look at what the cloud business unit really is all about, it's about taking our products, linking them together with best of breed products from as an example with the EMC hybrid cloud today, the VMware best breed technologies, engineering those together into pre-engineered solution so that when a customer goes to actually kind of consume from EMC, you know, a cloud, they effectively get all the services, educational services, they get the integrated solution delivered in a very short period of time. We did build a cloud live at EMC world is we've got that done under about 17 hours from, you know, start to finish and really prove that under a week, a customer can have infrastructure as a service platform as a service and applications as services. The kind of differentiation that EMC really brings together is adding in things like backup and recovery as a service. So that that's tied in DR as a service, high availability. These are all just check boxes that people can consume and actually apply and manage it themselves while also focusing on how it manages and making it easier for them. So cloud architect, cloud admin approaching it a little bit differently. So your business unit sells essentially the solution. Is that correct? Yep. So do you have engineering? We do. We have an engineering staff and we've we're growing that substantially to really focus on, you know, the different components in the market and components of the solution because it's very broad as you can imagine. It's not just the EMC technology, it's really integrating from the M&O layer all the way down through the EMC technologies that go through. So how do you so you own strategy too? Is that right? We do have your your own strategic destiny. We do for the solutions. Yes. For the solutions that are close. That's a big tam. Yeah, yeah, it's a good opportunity. Yes. OK, and so and I suppose somehow a matrix matrix matrix is up to the other parts of of EMC and absolutely somehow somebody smart makes the math work. Yes, absolutely. OK, well, so, you know, talk a little bit more about that. Because EMC is thought of as a hardware company, as we were talking about off camera. And you're now talking about solutions that are very heavily software led. We live in this software defined world. Everybody's going software defined crazy. Sure. That's a good thing. So talk about that transformation and what it means for your organization. Well, I think it means a lot when you think about software defined. It's also it's all about automation and providing an outcome. Right. The goal is to automate the infrastructure underneath and provide it the ability to give the services that I mentioned such as infrastructure, platform applications, all his services allow people to control their destiny, get a self service experience. There are certain components that will basically when you think about Viper, its software defined storage for us, it can configure anything, whether it's software or hardware defined underneath it. You think of our backup technologies that can be software or hardware as appliances. We tie all that together in a neat package for an experience for the customer. So there is some customers who want best of breed hardware and there are some customers who want commodity and we kind of blend that together and allow those kind of things to fall out out of selection. But the key is to give them an engineered solution that gives them experience that they can take to their own customers and reproduce. And our partners, by the way, as well, I don't want to leave them out. They get access to all of these engineered solutions and all of the content and IP along with it. So OK, so let me play sort of, let's role play. I'm a potential customer and I come to say, Peter, I like EMC. We've had a longstanding relationship. You're one of my strategic suppliers. Love you guys, reliable. Always do what you say you're going to do. And, you know, we've been together for 15 years. Awesome. But I get in pressure from the corner office. The CEO says that most of my IT spend is non-differentiated and he's saying for now on, I got to consume everything essentially as a service. So it's a consumption-based model, no more upfront cost. I don't want to provision any hardware anymore. I don't want to do any end-use enterprise license agreements and no penalties for early exit. Can you help me? So I think it, when you look at it from a standpoint of financial vehicles aside of leasing and other ways of kind of transacting, right? The real thing when you back that up is that they're not under pressure to go do specifically that. They're under pressure to reduce cost, create operational efficiency, drive agility, at least the experiences that I've had with customers. A lot of them are focused on cost, but less so and more looking at how can I drive agility? So I don't want to minimize the cost in the consumption model, but I also want to say that IT has an opportunity right now to take to be able to present a fully functional infrastructure platform. All these things that they can provide as services to their customers. And I think when you show them that they can do that on-prem with a very reliable infrastructure that can deliver a better experience with great SLAs, with great self-service functions, that by the way also takes away their end-users and developers from having to be IT people because other vehicles sometimes make the individual developer the application or they have to go configure the environment, comply to the security requirements, etc. With EMC Hybrid Cloud, that's all done. So I think it more goes back to the answer to your question. What is the customer trying to achieve? If it's truly a licensing or a consumption model that they're trying to break, I think you'd step back and look at some examples where customers have made those decisions. When you think about University of Phoenix as that example, they went that way and then realized that they could deliver it better, faster and with the reliability on-prem. So I think conversations that I've had with customers help us drive them to a blend, by the way. There's always going to be a need for a public consumption. And so it just depends on what goes where. Yeah, and by the way, I'm not necessarily suggesting a public consumption model. I should have clarified that. Maybe it's a hybrid consumption model, but one where they want to change the nature of the transaction. Now, if I infer correctly, you're saying you could accommodate that through financial means. Got it. So Peter, I'm wondering if you could speak to kind of that hybrid discussion because here at the show we tend to get very myopic that hybrid means the V-Cloud offering here. But my understanding is your solution spanned much more than just VMware. I believe I saw an announcement with Microsoft as you were not that long ago. What are the hybrid pieces that make up the solution set that you offer? So today, the EMC Hybrid Cloud is focused around VMware. Really looking at how we can bridge out to our CSPs as well. So we have some service provider partners that we also bridge to that allow us to provide that provisioning experience with choice. So V-Cloud Air, obviously, is the lead and one of them. But we also have CSPs who are really, really aligned to the direction we're going. Azure is an example powered by EMC underneath in certain areas. Those are the things that we're doing. So again, it's the same thing that we're doing. So again, it's kind of that discussion across the board which is choice and really making sure that we integrate across the board and have offerings in each stack. Okay. So talk about choice. The other thing where that often comes up is open. And the keynote this morning, I actually heard a little bit more open source than I would have expected. Yes. There's open compute. There's open stack. There's Docker discussion. And when I think about EMC and VMware in general, they're not super involved in a lot of the open source stuff. When you look at the cloud strategy, how does things like open source and open stack fit into that? Well, I think it plays into the needs of customers, right? If you back it up. And to where you're saying there is a need where customers want an alternative, whether it's VCAC manipulating, whether it's Hyper-V or KVM underneath, or ESX underneath as an open source model, as Pat mentioned today. And then there's the other pieces which maybe they're trying to do something completely different with a different partner. Again, it's back to the federation of we really have an opinion, but also offer choice. And I think what you'll see over time is that we'll focus a lot more on providing that choice and getting deeper into those communities. So I'm wondering if you can unpack for us a little bit the buyers of these technologies. Because, of course, EMC went well beyond just selling to the storage guys long ago. Moved up to more of the C-levels of the business guide, you've got the line of business, you've got cloud architects, you've got developer people that maybe more of the federation and Pivotal would get into. How do you sort that out and make your plan of attack for how cloud gets sold to the end users? Well, I think at the highest level, I think when you're looking at what CIOs and VP of infrastructures, VP's of storage, et cetera, they're all under the pressure that was mentioned. So they've got to deliver a service to their customers, they've got to deliver it in a certain way, very quickly improve time to value, and agility for IT, that's it. So I think when we first started this journey, it was a little more contentious where it was like, well, wait a minute, this whole cloud thing's not going to happen or it's still pretty slow. I believe this year, if I had to look at it, and especially next year, I believe adoption will be the key here as opposed to worrying about the different pieces and parts. And so I guess my view to answer your question is that unpacking that story is customers all need to provide infrastructure as a service. It's something that I think they're starting to realize and power to the end user. And one of the things that we do with some of our materials is we actually create that so customers can go use that and sell to their line of businesses themselves. Because our IT partners that we've been with for years, they need to actually be able to show that they can deliver that service in a very fluid way, in a very solid way so that they can actually make them feel like they're getting the experience they want.  You tie in the data lake and how they're going to run those apps against a huge repository of information. It really is a pretty good story that comes together very easily for CIOs, VP of Infrastructure, VP of Apps. And it really, I see it as a unifier actually. And that's what we've seen with the discussions we've had to date with our customers. So you mentioned, Peter, you're talking about, you mentioned backup as a service, DR as a service, HA, et cetera, but you sort of broadly talked about infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, and something you called application as a service. I think of an app store. Is that what you're talking about, helping customers get there? And it doesn't sound like an out-of-the-box solution. Are there other services components involved in your solution? So you talk about that. Well, so the basic, it's a great question. So the basic infrastructure as a service and platform as a service are basic, going to be coming right out of the factory from our VCE partners. And so, you know, VSpecs, et cetera, these will be pre-engineered solutions that you can take out the door. When I think of DR, backup, and storage performance hearing those things all, HA, all as services, they're really all part of a single provisioning operation, which is what we've done to customize kind of the provisioning experience. So they're not really separate services. They're like, hey, I'm going to order an application. Maybe it's Oracle, maybe it's a new, net new group of VMs for a web app. And I basically order that template, and by the way, I need a backup policy with it. And I want to be able to manage that backup policy. I get to choose it. I get to choose the storage tier of each layer of that application. If IT wants them to, by the way, if it's production and finance, maybe you take away all choice. But that's the power of the integration and the engineering is that you can allow IT the flexibility to control when that's necessary to compliance and other things, but allow flexibility for developers and users and line of businesses. So it really provides kind of this, it's really an integrated thing. It's not DR separately as a service. It's like, hey, I'm ordering a VM that requires DR capabilities. I check a box, I put it in RPO and I'm going. So it's that easy. That's a service that I can invoke as part of the package. That's correct. Okay, so my other question, we were talking, I didn't ask the question while you inferred I was talking about Amazon before, but I want to bring that in now. So you talk about outcomes. Obviously, there's pressure from public cloud. It would generically cause a public cloud. I prefer to talk about Amazon because they're the gorilla. Are your customers saying, I want to be Amazon like, closer to Amazon? I know I can't be Amazon, but I want to cut my cost. Where are they on that sort of spectrum and maturity model? Well, I think they're looking for help to understand where they are sometimes. So when you think, you just had Mike obviously on, it's a lot of services conversations for some people. And then there are others who just come in and say, I need to deliver, and they understand what their end users line of businesses developers are asking for, which is they want the basic services. They want infrastructure, platform as a service, and they want their application template, their build, their hardened build in a catalog with the capability to provide backup, backup tiering, DR, high availability, those things with the object and basically deliver those. So what I'd say is we were more prescriptive with those customers and say, hey, if you know that you need to deliver, this is where you want to go and this is what you need to do. And so a lot of them are saying, I want to provide a public cloud experience on-prem, but I want to be able to offer more value. So it's the consumerization of IT trend that you're enabling on-premise. Now, and I should say, I shouldn't say just on-premise, because again, the provisioning to vCloud Air, the provisioning out to our CSPs, that is part of our solution as well. So you can literally consume vCloud Air, I'm going to take a long time on that one. But you can actually consume that as part of your operation. So I should have said under their control. Yes. I mean, it goes back to the original notion and premise of what was then called private cloud. Remember, private cloud was originally sort of a hybrid as defined, I think one of the first guys I saw was Chuck Hollis sort of wrote this blog about that. But the whole notion was control. So you're right, I was being corrected there. So brokerage, right? So part of the EMC hybrid cloud solution does include AWS provisioning, because it's the base in the vCloud suite. So- It's an arrow in the quiver. That's correct. Okay. And where are you seeing, so what are the outcomes? I mean, from a cost and efficiency and agility standpoint, I don't know how people are measuring it, but I'd love to hear sort of the results. I mean, we're several years in now to the cloud trend. You're only, so what'd you say, 16 months into this sort of business unit, but you guys have been on the cloud early. You know, the journey to the private cloud starts now, I think it was 2010. So what are some of the outcomes that you're seeing and can you share with us any metrics? Yeah, I think that if I look at the information that was given at the partner event last night from the Apollo Group, University of Phoenix, and again, this is a spot experience, so we'll give a couple of examples to make sure we resonate here, but we think about the efficiency, the reliability, the over-provisioning that they had to do before, you know, when they were on a public cloud infrastructure, and they brought it in-house to reliable V-blocks on hardened hardware with the kind of software experience with cloud and infrastructure as a service, they can now spin up their virtual machines in, you know, 15 minutes, which used to take them pretty much a window overnight that was, you know, kind of breaking their model for business of when students could access things. That's with their former public cloud, you're saying. Correct, now they're in, and they can actually do, you know, this whole build for 150 VMs in 15 minutes, which now, again, provides them with that value. So that was an interesting story right there of how it was cheaper, better, and this was per her account, cheaper, better, faster, and more reliable on-prem from her experience. Another example of that would be like Columbia Sports, not that they've ever used, excuse me, Columbia Sportsware. They've never used public cloud that I know of, but from an internal private cloud, and I actually believe they're going to start consuming V-Cloud Air, another example of where they were able to create this offering and drive cloud usage and, you know, drive return. Yeah, big as a P-shop, we've had them on theCUBE before as well. Yeah. All right, Peter, we have to leave it there, we're getting the hook signed, so thanks very much for coming on theCUBE, sharing some customer experiences, and good luck. All right, thank you. Thanks for having me. Keep it right there, everybody. We will be back after this message. This is theCUBE, we're live from Moscone in San Francisco, right back.