Here we are in London, the Institute of Directors. So that's good to do, it's so great. This is Robert Turcic. Hello, hi, I'm Robert Turcic. Great to see you. Fine, then finally, what do you do? Explain it to me. Oh, well, right now what I'm doing is I'm advising media companies, big and small, about what to do next. And that could be next month, next year, or several years out. But what's really interesting to me right now is if you think five years into the future, most people have a vision of their business five years in the future, but it's more or less an incremental change from what they're currently doing. And then if you ask them to look back five years, all of a sudden we realize, well, there are a lot of new things in the world that weren't there five years ago. The iPhone, the smartphone, YouTube's grown so tremendously in the last five years. Facebook has grown tremendously in the last few years. Even how mobile has pervaded our lives has shifted in such a big way because all the numbers from mobile around the world have grown enormously in the last few years. So mobile was always important. We always knew it would be important, but now we've reached this tipping point where a billion people, a billion people are carrying around smartphones with cameras and suddenly we're seeing 100 hours of video uploaded every minute to YouTube. And so it would be five billion, right? Yes, seven billion. So let me just back to the beginning for a second. So I'm directly on how the futurist or the keynote speaker tonight, I met Robert on the internet, so to speak. That's right. Not like what it sounds. It's not on a dating site. But basically, we talk about media and content and paid content, how to monetize it. It's very much alike our message. That's right. Well, I've been a fan of yours for years because I found your thoughts about music are informative not just for the music industry, but now just about every business is turning into media and where music goes, media will follow. So in a way, you've pioneered this path long before any of us. Yeah, well, you know, it was pretty straightforward. But let's talk about maybe quickly back and forth about the key trends for media companies, whether publishers or record labels or movie companies or broadcasters. So maybe we can just ping-pong back and forth quickly. You know, what are the key things happening right now and what do they need to actually look at? Well, I think one of the most important things, if I were in a media company today, which I'm not, thankfully, the most important thing is that I believe the big media companies have lost the ability to innovate, to truly radically innovate their business. And did they ever? Well, they were able to bring out hits and they weren't afraid, they weren't averse to big media transformation on a decade-by-decade basis, right? Well, the TV guys weren't, but they didn't want the city. Well, that's true. They resisted the magic. Well, you could say the same with television, right? Because they fought cable, then they accepted it because it turned out to be a good business, then they fought the VCR and the VCR became a good business, then they fought the DVR, turns out that works too. So yeah, the media industry has a tendency to fight the future, but every 10 years or so, they embrace a change. What's happening now that's important they need to recognize is the rate of innovation is accelerating because the obstacles for a startup company have basically gone away. So now you've got the crowd and the cloud and this knocks out enormous amounts of cost and it gives you a great, great scale very quickly. Social is like a free way to get marketing out there. Well, this is an important part of the cloud, right? Yes. Because when I did a startup in the 90s, we had to write, I think we spent a million dollars in just infrastructure. Exactly, right. And now we can just go around and for five dollars you can rent something at Amazon. Gary, that was true until 2007 or 2008, right? And that's the point of Amazon now. In the past, if you were gonna, let's say you were gonna invest in a company as a VC, you would ask the company to show you their plan for scalability. You know, the question would be, well, if you're successful, how are you gonna manage growth? It was always an issue. And so companies had to have a plan for that. Now your plan is, let's just go stick it up on Amazon and find out and if we need more scale, we can buy it tomorrow, no problem. We can get it in 15 minutes. So that removes not just that cost or that investment, but also the time that it took to figure out that plan, to build that infrastructure, the waste of money, the personnel that you needed to run all that equipment. That's all gone now. So companies can move much faster. Isn't part of the innovation problem. I mean, you're based in the US, and not the Andrews. I'm based over here, which is definitely different worlds, but in terms of the ability to innovate, isn't part of the problem that I found with my clients from the movie business or publishers is that they don't want to change the existing paradigm of business relationships and they don't want to self cannibalize.  They keep telling themselves that, right? And they've been saying that story for more than a decade. I used to hear that when I was at Sony Pictures in the 1990s. Oh, well, the new businesses, the digital business doesn't generate as much revenue. So we're not ready to turn the lights off on our old business. We're gonna keep that going for a while. Well, you know, now I work with big media companies that say the exact same thing. It's 10 years later. What they're failing to notice, first of all, those digital businesses are now pretty big and they monetize pretty well. So at some point, they are gonna need to confront that piece of equation, which is, you know, if you keep staying with a dwindling business, your business will dwindle fast. You know this because of music. But there's a second piece there as well, I think. And that's about the speed of innovation or the resistance to innovation. So if the way you look at all new media and all new innovation is a threat to my revenue, it's a threat to my ecosystem, it's a threat to my existing business, it's a threat to my intellectual property, then basically you're conditioning your entire organization to view the future as a threat. And you're conditioning them to inaction. So when I talk to big media companies and I get to meet their piracy departments, I say you guys are the reason this company has lost its ability to innovate because you've taught everybody here that the future is bad, the future is evil, it's something we have to fight, we need new rules, new laws to shut it down. And that's actually a mistake. So I will give you the example of television. In TV, there are dozens of really cool video startups that wanted to partner with TV companies and help them transition. We saw this with music, right? They've been right Googled out. And well, no, what happens is they get sued into submission, right? Because the piracy team looks and says, yeah, but you don't have permission to be doing what you do, it's so they've taken the court. And now that startup company that could have been so helpful, instead now they're tied up in a court case, they might win, look at VO. VO just won a lawsuit. The lawsuit lasted for about five years. So they finally won. It's a startup-in-unit video company. The problem is VO's out of business. So they won, but it was a pure victory because now there's no company left. I use this image from a lot of my clients when I say basically you're living under a dome, right? Yeah.  You're living in there and inside of this dome, it's your environment.  And as long as you do that, everything is fine. But what happened now, because of the web, is that people are drilling holes into the dome, everywhere, or they're going in under the ground. And the atmosphere out here is different from the atmosphere in there. And if they haven't had time to adapt to that atmosphere, they get an explosive decompression and they get killed. It's like, for example, in Indonesia, you have 82% of the population watches cable TV and satellite TV without having it. Oh, that's rough. In some other way, or in Brazil, it's 68% or something. So this over-the-top idea would be the only way to get them as part of a bundle. Yeah, that's right. So it's rethinking. But that is a factor that is not news, right? Watching internet video, well, for 800 videos, it's been around since the 90s. But really, with the advent of broadband and services like YouTube suddenly, around 2007, 2008, this became a habit, new habit. And the usage pattern is very different, particularly now that people are looking on mobile. So what have the TV companies done? Well, they've kept their content to themselves. They refuse to license it out to new companies. Look at Warner Brothers, refusal to deal with Netflix, for instance, right? So they withhold their content. They sue wherever they can to try to stop them. And now, that doesn't grow their business. What it actually does is it trains an entire generation on how to use BitTorrent. Because the fact is today... Sure, it creates piracy. We're here with... I've been doing this since 1994, really, in 2000. I've started with the future and stuff. You were an executive before. Now we're here and we have some learnings and we've done thousands of sessions. I've done, in fact, 1,600 presentations. That's either good or exhausting, it's very tough, which it is. Yeah, well, a bit more than I was a musician, even. But in any case, so we have some learnings. Let's put some learnings on the table. And if we're going to go forward into five years, what do we have to actually, what do media companies have to embrace today if they have the guts, which we decided that they don't really have the guts. But that's fine out. So you guys out there, if you have the guts, here's some bottom line. Well, I think a spirit of radical openness is something they need to embrace, because we know this from the web, right? Open standards, open APIs, open source software, open platforms, that seems to work really well if you want rapid scale and invite others in to innovate with you. Media companies are not set up for openness or transparency, everything's secret, every deal's done in the back rooms. I use a Tim O'Reilly code. You as publisher, Tim O'Reilly from O'Reilly. Of course. He says, basically, it's your as much, open as much as you can. The monetization sometimes requires a bit of closing. So it's not a black or white thing, but I call this open AMAP, open as much as possible. Oh, that's good. That's about right, that's about right. Because you can't make money when everything is open, but an open doesn't mean free. Yes, that's right. But at the same time, it acquires the audience when you're open. That's it. And people want to feel like they're part of this, right? The whole point of collaborative software and participatory media, is the audience wants to have a meaningful role. So today, if I were a producer, I would definitely cast my audience in a role where they had a chance to do something meaningful, not just tweeted or retweeted. But when you do that, you give them some control. You do. You lose control. The problem is, you know, when people are saying open, it means more risk. It's one also, participation means you need to let more people in at the table. It's risky to be open. It is risky, but on the other hand, it's much riskier, I think, to be entirely closed when you see the rapid scale these companies are changing at or these industries are changing. I think the biggest risk of all is to try to maintain tight control. That's an illusion. And that way lies disaster. Okay, so that's rule number one. Rule number two, I'll let me chime in on this one. Rule number two is that basically now we have what I call the digital default. Oh, I like that. Tell me about that. Yeah, everything is going digital and into the cloud. My health records, my movies. And it's all based on, I click and it goes. Yeah, that's right. So the digital default also means I buy stuff online. I compare things online. I rate my doctor. I use the map to find my way. And if it's not in the cloud, it doesn't really exist. Basically, if you're not in that digital place, you don't exist. It's true. So if somebody's looking for a service that will travel with them across devices and your company doesn't provide it, it doesn't mean that they're going to buy your content somewhere else. Well, it used to. This is no longer working. That's the goal. It used to mean that. So, for example, sports. Now, sports is next in this line of disruption, right? Sure. Because sports, you couldn't watch the game unless you had ESPN or whatever it was, or HBO or whatever channel it was running on, right? Like, the sports rides are highly contested and very valuable. And they're very expensive. So now it's moving into apps. It's moving into... Well, here's where that's interesting. So that actually pits sports leagues against broadcast companies. Who used to be partners. It was a very lucrative business partnership. In the US, the most successful mobile app is Major League Baseball. And they publish it themselves? Yes, I used to have it. It's a great app. And it cost... It cost mostly here. It cost $120. Like, most mobile apps cost a buck or two bucks, right? $120, but that makes sense, because they have content and fans who want to reach... These are the food chain conflicts, right? So... Yeah, that's true. Part of the food chain conflicts means that I think as a broadcaster, for example, or as a studio, you have to move outside the silo. Yes. So you're in the silo of making content.  That's true. And this guy's in the silo of tech. And now they're all jumping into each other's game. And now that's not true, right? You're not in the silo anymore. So you have to...  And now the brands are becoming broadcasters themselves. Look at Nike and Red Bull and... Everybody can go direct to the consumer, and that's a shock, right? In the past, advertisers had to go through a network. And even the cable channels, they weren't direct to consumers. They went through a cable operator or satellite operator. But now everyone's in a rush to go direct. Not everybody's good at this. This was a rule before, actually, you could summarize. I always say... I think it's good to have some numbers here, right? Rule number four is that if it can, go direct it well. Yeah, that's right. And if you don't do it, someone else will. Whether it's Kickstarter or Netflix or Hulu+, or whatever, if it can go direct it well, this also goes for talent. Yes. Yes, so the idea of withholding your content from a marketplace because you think it's not priced right or it doesn't fit your business model, you're not withholding it or preserving any value. All you're doing is depriving yourself of the opportunity to learn, participate, grow, gain some knowledge. And the greatest example of this is Game of Thrones because this is not just the greatest TV show and maybe the best example of kind of pay TV ecosystem. It's also the most pirated show in the world. So really what HBO has done is it's training an entire generation how to use BitTorrent. More people are watching Game of Thrones via BitTorrent that are watching it on HBO as legitimate payers. So this is a crazy phenomenon. It's sort of a paradigm. The tough part being is that these things used to work, right? Yes, that's right. They forced people into certain behavior and they didn't have much else what they could do. So it's like the banks, you know, they forced us to pay them all these fees and stuff. And now we just use the mobile, you know, or we use PayPal or Bitcoin maybe. And telecoms, right? Skype is wiping out telecom. There's so much innovation in messaging. It's not just media. It's actually sort of pervading every industry. Wherever it touches media or communication or data or information, all of those things now are up on the web and in the cloud. Okay, part number five. Yes, part number five, we're already there. It's mobile. So people talk about mobile first or mobile only. This is not necessarily a helpful frame. The main message is you've got to move mobile to the center of your business because that's how we use it as users, right? So we use our mobile phone constantly. The mythological figure is 150 times a day. No one can prove whether that's true. But the fact is you do use your mobile a lot. You look at it first thing in the morning. You look at it at night. You know, you're using it for all your apps. So in a way, I think of it as like my ignition key. And just yesterday here in London, I was showing some friends, media on their Apple TV with my iPhone. And it was kind of cool. It was like I brought my whole media collection with me over here to Europe. And that's a thing that I encourage every media executive to get their head wrapped around is how people are really using mobile because it's really rapidly becoming the first screen. I know that's a crazy thought because most people use TV. Yeah, it's basically this market screen device and usage, right? And the other thing is social, local mobile, social mobile, people are saying, I think the problem is that lots of people who are in the media business, especially publishers, they don't live in that world. You know, they live in the world of the television over here, newspaper here, and the mobile for email. Well, their experience is so limited in so many ways, right? So you have to actually live in the social local mobile. Yeah, because I think the numbers are really quite shocking and probably by 2007 we'll have five billion people connected to the web. 80% of that will be on mobile devices. Which is why Zuckerberg is already talking about three billion on Facebook. Three billion, right? But they're halfway there already. Yeah, we know two billion more. I didn't think that I'd get through three billion, but I mean, basically what's happening is the social networks are the next broadcasters. Yeah, that's a good way to go. Broadcasting to each other. And so the mobile thing is a centerpiece of this, but one advice to the audience out there, if you're not close to this, then spend four weeks doing everything you do only with the mobile. And then you'll understand what it means. And not talking about just the mobile headset, but also tablets. Downloading your content and watching your content, bringing a PowerPoint presentation or maybe keynotes better. So next point relates to that, I think is what I call big data. Yeah, that's connected, exactly right. It's the idea of saying, well, I don't know what that is. This is one of those taglines that everybody's laundering all day long, like social media. But anyway, big data basically means an unheard of volume, volume, variety, velocity, and value of new kinds of data that's coming. So this is a huge, huge wave of data that's coming that allows people to be analyzed and customized for advertising and all these things. So big data is now becoming a major driver of media because data is the oil of the economy right now. I agree with you, but I think a lot of people in the media business fail to understand what big data really means. So we think of a proprietary data asset. That's a concept that really fits on a social media site because the user is generating all this content and there's both the social graph and the interest graph so we can extract a lot of interesting patterns from them. Now think about a media company. When they think about their proprietary data asset, it's usually a show or a song. These are very poor digital assets in a digital environment. They're easily stolen. The value is quickly depleted. They're very expensive to produce. They're hard to protect. So they don't really perform well in a two-way network. But they're missing the point. If that's all they focus on, what they're missing is that there's two other layers of data. Each piece of content has metadata around it and there's a lively competition springing up right now. This is a very rich area for innovators because media companies have missed it. They're blind to it. So innovative companies are creating metadata and they're aggregating and exchanging. It's the content that wraps around the content and then there's the usage pattern. So for instance, if you look at a cable TV company, they have knowledge of what every single person is doing. They just have really crappy systems for tracking it and extracting it and turning it into something usable. Well, I think one of the things that I'd like to say about this is basically that in some instances, the metadata may be more valuable than the content itself. It's possibly true, right? Because it generates this glue, this layer. So if you get permission from the user, if you get them to participate, then it becomes something that's really valuable. So basically the value is generated around the content. Yeah, that's right. Like you can see, for example, in books or magazines like The Economist, the value is around this content, for example, by listening to the conversation, the comments, the link-backs. The Huffington Post, that's the example, or the Atlantic Magazine, or what have you, they're creating this huge thing around it. So big data, in my view, is a major driver of, in fact, of course, it relates to advertising. So when you have exact data and the television, this is sort of a scary thought, the television knows who you are. It should, right? Well, maybe it should not, but basically all of these devices know who we are because of what we have allowed to share. Right. But we don't really listen carefully to that data. In the media business, like we're deaf to that information. No, but I mean, Google and Facebook and others. And the new Microsoft, the Xbox One, is designed for this, right? And Intel has a proposal to this effect. They do as well, that's right. And so does Cisco and others. So look at it this way, that the TV companies failed to innovate. 15 years ago I was talking to cable operators about a new kind of set-top box that would be able to track people's usage and cameras that could see, you know, the retina and register individual people. We could sub-segment the household and all this stuff. We could tell if it was a dog watching or a human being. And they recoiled from it. But now Microsoft, the Xbox One, they've introduced it. So you could say, gee, that the incumbent companies failed to innovate. They had the opportunity, we even explained how to do it to them. And they failed completely and utterly to see the possibility. Now a new generation of companies is coming and they see that as their opportunity and it will redefine the business. So what's happened is a failure to innovate within these industries doesn't stop innovation. It just means innovation is driven outside and it grows up and it takes a long time so you don't see it right away. But now all of a sudden, those information empires on the internet are so much bigger than the traditional media. I think this failure to innovate is largely based on the orthodoxies, you know, the assumptions of life. Right, that's true. They can innovate if they ever decided to. But they believe, for example, like recorders believe that controlling a copy is the ultimate paradigm. And so they sued 50,000 people and a decade later they're making 70% less money. So it's a question of your belief. Right, and now the film students are following that same strategy and they're suing even more people and it doesn't work for them. Well, I think so. So bottom line is if you're a publisher, you should get a big data officer and you should figure out what to do about data and all these things and how to use these assets and how to work with companies that are the new oil companies. Many people are saying in fact, Google is the next axon. Sorry, Google. I don't think you are. But in any case, you know, and many people are saying Google is the next matrix now, which is kind of interesting as well. Potentially, yeah. Let's talk about advertising. So how is advertising changing because you know there's roughly, what is it, 650 billion dollars a year spend on advertising. And if that is going away from traditional television, so what's gonna happen with that? Well, so it hasn't gone away. So the sad news for all those online video companies is that they haven't actually been very successful in turning TV dollars into internet dollars. They'd like to, they keep getting better at making a proposition, but advertisers are quite conservative and so those dollars stay with TV and they probably will for a little while. But there are a couple changes coming. So we can start to see the outline of the change. The first one is this year at the upfront in New York, all the big broadcasters came in and their big message was multi-platform. Everybody talked multi-platform. You can buy all of the ones. Yeah, what they're really saying is we're putting some of our shows on some of these devices and then they point back to TV because that's still where the big dollars are. But they heard the message, advertisers want multi-platform. All right, fine, we'll give you that, right? So they're working on that. The second thing to pay attention to now is increasingly ad agencies in New York, particularly the media buyers, the digital side is taking over the traditional side and so what you're gonna start to see is all those metric-driven, automated tools from the web, they're gonna start to pervade the traditional media. Then traditional media will start to resemble the web much more and you'll see the two things blend together more. So that's good. And finally, I would observe this. Advertising used to be a creative business. Think Mad Men, right? It's not. Now it's an analytics number-driven. It's a big data business just like you were saying a minute ago. Advertising is a big data business now. That's a shock to the people in advertising, the creative people find this anathema when I say it, but it's absolutely the case now. It's a numbers-driven, analytics-driven business. Much of that's driven by the experience on the web where you can literally A-B test, you can do a real-time exchange, you can buy an exact audience, deliver precisely to that audience, things that were unthinkable in traditional media, but increasingly that too will start to show up on television, music, and so on. I think, of course, that the saving grace of what we're seeing in television is that it's actually converging with the internet. Yeah, that's right. And with mobile, and with social. That's why I'm so bullish on video, because TV might have its challenges, but video consumption is going up and down. I think if you're looking at the advertising pie expanding because of gamification and apps and so on, then television can be part of that expansion and being part of the offering. That's exactly right. Which unlike publishers, it's very easy for them to do, for example, second screen and those kind of things. While a publisher that is completely spoiled by the huge margin of the past, looking at the analog dimes coming in or pennies, then it's not the same. So it's harder for them because they don't have the attention monopoly any longer.  But you know, all these companies find, when they do jump over the digital divide and start to become digital companies, they discover to their dismay that the margins are lower on the web, because there's a hell of a lot more competition. But I think here's the bottom line, this is, I was trying to tell my client, yes, it may even just be 10% of what you made before, but the global audience of 5 billion people connected. You got it, that's right. And if they're all gonna be a fan of the Lilyhammer show or whatever, you can advertise on that, and you can have brand and branded content in the Instagram advertising, that is a lot better than the thing you ever had. I'm with you. This is like the Kindle. If you're gonna sell a book for two laws in the Kindle, but your potential audience is a billion, you're gonna get a lot more people. You're gonna make money, you'll make profit. You may not make the same profit margin, but you'll reach a bigger audience. And frankly, there's also a limited amount of people's time and attention, so you want that big audience if you can. Here's the way to look at it. Media, traditional media, is all about revenue maximization. So that's close it down, lock it off, force a subscription, control the audience, all those things, right? It seems like in digital media, it's all about audience maximization and not necessarily revenue maximization. So the two things that are opposite ends of the spectrum, right? If you're gonna maximize revenue, you're gonna minimize audience. But if you maximize revenue, you have to also have control of the audience, right? Well, that's very hard to do. And you can't do that anymore. So I call this a transition trauma, right? You're in this space where you say, you can't control the viewers anymore, and the brands, and the message. So you can control your own content, but that hasn't really changed, right? So in the future, you have to find a way that you can involve them in this process. And this is where the big disconnect is happening. It's true. So it's not that the money isn't there, the money is there.  I mean, look at Netflix, you know, 43 million subscribers. It's about to find that. And they're spending a hundred million out of new series. So I think it was the economist in the presentation I saw the other day, I think it was Tector, actually, who was talking about the primal thing is that we have to look for is a reason to pay. What is my reason to pay for this content? And it can't just be one reason. For example, you know, I'm not subscribed in the New York Times just because the writers are good. I'm gonna subscribe, well, they are good, you know, there's no doubt about that. But you know, I'm gonna pay 300 bucks for it. So I subscribe because there's 10 other reasons that make it, it was basically indispensable to my life. And then I'm in. This is like Major League Baseball app, you know, pay 120 bucks a year.  It's worth it. Exactly. But not if it was a thousand dollars. Probably not, right? But that would be revenue maximization, right? So they're getting a good balance because they're getting fairly high money for an app. Well, very high money. Well, it's four cents, but they got it. That's true. But I would forecast that for books, for example, we're gonna see lots of books, novels in the range for $1 to $5. Yeah. Because they'll be written more painlessly and published quicker and without the publisher. Yeah. So I would pay more for a shorter book. I think there's a lot of, the model right now is broken, right? You get someone who wrote a good article for the Atlantic and then you say, great, we want that article turned into a book. So now go add another 160 pages to what really should have been maybe a 40 page piece. I'd rather have the 40 page piece and I'd pay five or six bucks for that or break it into five books, five mini books. And they'd probably pay a couple of bucks for each of those. You can assemble that same package. You know, we have this idea that the way media is, the way we grew up with media is how it's always going to be. But the fact is, if you look over the long, like centuries, it changes, right? Charles Dickens used to sell books by the chapter and that's why his big books, we get them today, you know, bound the rate of thick like that. People bought them as pamphlets one by one. That's why each chapter ends with such a great cliffhanger because he wanted that audience clattering for the next chapter, right? So he got the subscription business. If that's how authors have to write in the future, we'll probably write better. It'll be more entertaining. People will read it more thoroughly. They'll read what they pay for. It might actually be better. I think what we're seeing is one of the big switches now that we're seeing from the first part of the internet. Now that very soon we're going to have five billion people connected. So a lot more musicians, publishers, story writers, film producers and so on will have a landfill, a huge landfill of stuff. So curation and filtering and making sense out of it is a huge drop. That's what publishers should be doing. It is. And look, we know this because this happened in the past. When the magazine boomed. That is going to be even bigger. I understand. But Reader's Digest emerges a really powerful thing because they did a digest. There were so many magazines. Nobody could read them all. So they did that for you, right? Harper's used to do this as well, where they would take selections from magazines and gather it into a compilation. So for sure we know this is a proven strategy that works when there's proliferation of content. People will pay for the valuable service. I read your newsfeed for this reason because you're always posting interesting stuff. Put in the coins. You need a tip box. I'm going to put up a paywall. That's exactly right. So I mean, I like to keep a bottom line for everything so people can use it for Twitter, right? OK. So what a bottom line for this is basically, I think the distribution has been replaced by sense making. OK. Yeah, that makes sense.  If you're going to reach 100 million people, you can't do it on the mobile phone quite yet. And it won't work even for 100,000 people streaming in real time in many ways, right? So that's still a big deal. But very soon we'll see the shift over until you're going to pay for sense making and for the content and for the packaging and the design. That's right, Flipboard. You're not going to pay for just for having it. Right. And just an undifferentiated web page isn't really worth very much, so you're not going to make. Like, you know, why do people pay for Netflix? They don't pay for the movies because they can get the movie anyway. But it's low enough to pay for the convenience of all apps. Correct. And it's so well done, right? This notion that just to use your example a little further in Netflix, that I can watch, I can start on my phone, turn that off, now look at it on my tablet, it picks up in the exact same spot. Then I go to my TV set, it picks up in the exact same spot coming from my PlayStation or Xbox or Apple TV. This concept, which seems so obvious to everybody who uses Netflix, TV companies still haven't figured out that that's what users want. That's valuable to them because now the content follows them in a way that they can use. Convenience, it's utility, it's ease of access, discoverability, findability, all these things you're just describing. But when you explain that to a TV person, it's like it's the first time you've ever heard of it. I think one of the other challenges in this context is that many of the rights owners, especially the larger rights owners, whether they're publishers or movie companies, they want to have this new accomplishment of doing all these things. But they also want to have the old, which is the control of a distribution, the windowing, the time releases, the authority to control whatever the green people watch it, whether people in Tunisia or whatever, they want all of that plus they want the new stuff. And that's not possible. So this is why you can't have the KGNED. You can't have control and, at the same time, have a much larger global audience. Newsflash is the media business. Control is an illusion. That was the past. If you're still operating out of that script, you're looking in the rear view mirror, even when you're in the fast lane. You're probably going to crash. Yeah, going back to the paradigm of Timorati is very, very important. I think that open is how you build an audience. And when you close a little bit, but you make it so it's acceptable, that's how you can monetize. Sure. Look, iTunes is a great illustration of that. Yeah, but iTunes, of course, has a walled garden syndrome. Yeah, it is. And it has monetized, but it's not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere. Understood. But it's open and closed. They're at Facebook, right? It's a proprietary platform that's sort of open, and you can sort of innovate on top of it. It's open enough, right? And there's a degree. Maybe they should be more open. I have the same problem, if you look for somebody at Spotify, which I really love Spotify, just for the record. People say, I don't like Spotify, but I do like. I'm a subscriber. They're challenged with their business model, but that's not their problem. Now, here's the problem with Spotify is exactly this problem. Spotify wants to be open and give the music to the world. Yeah, great. Even for a dollar a week, or for $10 a year in the developing countries. And that could only be achieved by bonding with the telecoms. Oh, people, yeah. So it's because they have the distribution. That would make sense. So the telecoms would love to buy this, but not for 10 euros a month, or 10 dollars a month, because it's way too expensive. But think about this. The labels want to get paid. If two billion users pay a dollar a month. Right, it'd be a gigantic weight for the labels. That'd be two times that, be 24 billion. I agree. Now, the labels are saying, this is all quite nice, but it's a theory, because right now we've got CDs held still, and we have items. And we want to keep control. So go over off and stick with your 10 million. And this means the death of Spotify, in the end. Well, it definitely gates their growth, and that is a real problem for them. This is a death. But it's the record label's problem, man. It's ultimately going to haunt them, as well. This is another example of a media company killing the company, trying to help it make the transition, because they insist on their own economics. There's a lesson behind this for the entrepreneurs in the audience. Stay independent. And stay in a place where you can decide to launch a degree like YouTube did for a long time. We would never have YouTube, if Chad Hurley would have asked, the studios for permission. Permission. Yeah, that's true. And of course, a lot of stuff to do was sort of in the gray zone, you know? But anyway, we have YouTube. Or even firmly in the black zone, right there. Migrating. We have YouTube now as the biggest broadcast in the world as a result of not playing the game totally by the book. Well, in every company, it's been successful, right? Facebook, there's clearly evidence that in the beginning, they bent the rules, maybe broke the rules. Apple, the origins of Apple, are kind of murky this way, Bill Gates, the origins of Microsoft. So innovative companies break things. That's what they do, right? Well, this is a big deal for the comments, right? Disruption. Yes. And again, my bottom line is you disrupt or you are disrupted. Yes. And this is not new, but now on the web, the speed of this is fast. Yeah, it's fast. And that's currently, because of these things we were talking about a minute ago, the cloud, the crowds, social, mobile, these things allow you to innovate fast with not much resource. So now you can launch a mobile app pretty cheaply. We met a guy the other day, a young kid who's developed over 80 apps himself. So people are building this stuff on their own and knocking it out. They're hiring people on the app. You know, there's companies like pharma companies like Genome Tech, they have their own app that they give to the businesses, their partners, to work with them on new medications and things. They have an app store, right? So why does one of the students have an app store? It makes no sense to me. If I can hire somebody on the web and get them to build an app for me in a week, what's wrong with these entertainment companies? There should be an app for everything. So part of it's... There should be an app for the producers and an app to submit. And they convince themselves that they have some kind of quality and therefore they need a lot of approvals and a lot of meetings and a lot of personnel and a lot of stuff. Well, the European Broadcasting Union, which is the Union of Public Television, I held a speech for them three weeks ago and I can't figure out why they're not getting it. These are the most powerful TV companies in Europe. Collectively. And then not getting together and saying, you know what, we're going to have an app store. Yeah, we're going to have our own app store. And this will be nothing. You'd find people doing it for free. Just to be part of it. Plus they could collaborate on the development of the app so they could unify metrics across the board. They could build something, a framework that they could all use and modify for their brand and their content and their language. But they could share infrastructure and knock out a lot of the cost. They'll never do it because they always believe they have to control their destiny. Well, this is another thing. They need control. Now, paradigm problem is this hypercompetition rather than hypercollaboration. Yes. And if you're looking at the tech companies, they'll collaborate with anyone. You got it. You know what? Because they know what they need to own and then everything else can be free, right? So you control your piece, but then the rest of the value chain, you can collaborate, you can outsource, you can give it away even, right? It's the rule, actually, Craig Newmark is the pioneer of all this because he used to say back in the early days with Craigslist, he'd say monetize, but don't over monetize. So know where you get paid. Find that one thing, control app. But then the rest of it, you can be a little bit more relaxed about the rest of it and let other people build a business on top. You don't have to own all of that. So the companies have been successful by allowing third-party developers to come in and build apps. They actually let those companies build pretty successful businesses. This is happening now. The pharma business is happening in the car business. I mean, all of the major car companies, I've worked with some of them, they all have open innovation sources. Yes. And a lot of the R&D happens from the user. That's right. I mean, this is completely obvious, I think to anyone looking there. So I think- So why can't I do that on my set-top box for my cable or satellite company? Why don't they let me go out and build an application to manage the UI? Why can't I just get the API data for what channels are where and build some cool navigation system or my own curated list that I could share or trade or publish if I wanted to? They won't do it. And as a result, the problem there, it's not like they're going to maintain control or maintain their business. They're going to simply drive innovation to some other platform that lets them do it. Maybe it will be- I mean, look at the self-driving car in Google, right? Yeah, Google has driven the self-driving car forward and it runs on data, it doesn't run on gas, right? That's right. It runs on data. And now what they've said is, you know what, we don't intend to build these things. But they force BMW and Audi involved when all the other guys say, oh, shit, now we have to do this also, right? And this is what's happening. And I think for the media companies, if they do this, they become sort of reactionary to this and they usually oppose to the consumer. Yeah, that's right. And that's a bad place to be and that has to be reversed. Anyway, we've got the end. So- We can talk all day here. If you guys are interested what Robert Turc chicken and Iger Linhov could do for you, you could ping us and let's put our Twitter names here if you can see this. So I'm at G Leonhard, okay? All right, bye. Okay. And Twitter, of course, is the way to get in touch with us. Don't, please don't email us. That's super, that's superplex, okay? So that's what is Robert Turcic.com, T-E-R-C-E-K for Turcic. And I'm at futuristgird.com. Great. That's my new URL. So if you're interested, we'd be happy to come over and inflict some pain on you. Thanks very much for tuning in.


e name of the minister already debated with amendment 177 the minister to move formally moved. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to are we all agreed? That's agreed. Oh sorry my apologies I've never heard anybody. Right those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is agreed 4-3 5-2 right don't listen to me don't listen to me right my apologies right the the coty Alec Cole-Hamilton has said that he was not going to move the amendment 203 I call amendment 28 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 11 are we going to move that on the behalf of Daniel Johnson okay thank you therefore the question is that amendment 28 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? Those opposed? Amendment 28 falls. The question is therefore that section 7 be agreed to are we all agreed? The question section 7 is agreed to by a claim. I call amendment 113 in the name of the minister minister to move formally or not? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 67 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 66. Andy Wightman to move or not? Moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? 4. Those against? 3. The amendment is carried 4-3 I call amendment 68 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 66. Andy Wightman to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 131 in the name of the minister be previously debated with amendment 66. The question is therefore that amendment 131 agreed. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 133 in the name of the minister. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 134 in the name of the minister. Moved. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. It's agreed by a claim. I call amendment 135 in the name of the minister. Not moved. Thank you and I call amendment 136 in the name of the minister. Not moved. The question is that section 8 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed by a claim. I call amendment 78 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 177. Graham Simpson to move or not moved? Moved. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed by a claim. I call amendments 137, 138, 178 and 179 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 177. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 137, 178 and 179? The question is that amendments 137, 138, 178 and 179 are agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 204 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 177. Monica Lennon to move or not move. The question is that amendment 204 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Three. Those opposed? Four. The amendment 204 falls. I call amendment 180 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 177. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. By a claim. I call amendment 205 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 177. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment 205 is agreed to. I call amendment 206 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 177. Monica Lennon to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment 206 is agreed to. I call amendment 139 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 177. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed. I call amendment 87 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 177. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? Those opposed? It's the amendment falls, both of them. Yes, so the question is that section... No, I don't need to, right? Well, in that case, that's the end of stage 2. Can I thank the minister, his officials and the other MSPs who attended today's meeting? Day 4 of stage 2 will take place on 24 October, when the committee's target is the end of part 3. Because of October recess, any further amendments up to the end of part 3 should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 4 October, and that concludes the public part of today's meeting. Thank you very much. And I suspend the meeting.


From DailyDoseOfWeirdNews.com, I'm Darren Marlar, and this is your Daily Dose of Weird News. In Indiana, a guy broke into an auto parts store by kicking a hole through a wall. A neighbor called police who arrived to find the man half in and half out of the hole. All that kicking must have really tired him out because he was also asleep when they found him. A new study finds that most extramarital affairs are carried on by older Americans. 17-year-old South Carolina high school student might spend a month in jail for assault and battery after he allegedly threw a paper airplane that struck a teacher in the eye. Georgetown County Sheriff's deputies arrested the teen at Andrews High School. Teacher Edward McIver told deputies that he was upset after getting hit by the airplane because he recently had eye surgery. He also told police that he and the student had had previous confrontations over the student's behavior and that something needs to be done. The student was charged with third degree assault and battery and was released from jail on bond. In case you missed that, you can now be arrested at school for throwing a paper airplane.  A newly developed smart tattoo can monitor the wearer's health. Aren't tattoos themselves the opposite of smart? A Princeton University study has found that 85% of all Americans say they feel happy every day. But if you are among the 15% who are stuck on gum, try carrying around a few baby photos. The University of Wisconsin-Madison study reveals that looking at baby pictures activates a part of the brain that's associated with positive emotions. And if you're like me and you don't have any kids, well, there's always Facebook where you can't get away from other people's baby pictures no matter how hard you try. Lindsay Lohan is asking everyone to stop bullying Donald Trump. This news update is brought to you by the Fruitcake Makers of America. Every now and then, you're going to hear a story that makes you believe some things are just meant to be. Like how Lila Apostolo once asked to complete Stranger on Twitter to pretend to be her husband as a joke. And now, three years later, she has married him for real. Back in 2014, Lila posted, Are you a man? Can I borrow you for a wedding next weekend? Bonus points if you can source a baby that I can pretend is mine too. Well, Phil Gibson replied, taking the bait, saying he was available, quote, with a suit and everything, unquote. She replied, See you at the altar. Philip replied, It's a date. Just a date though, right? Well, he didn't actually end up going with her to her sister's wedding, but Lila and Phil did agree to meet up for a drink that week.  But as it turns out, that feeling was totally right, and now the happy couple are married. South Korea is developing a public transportation train that travels 620 miles an hour. I would highly recommend you do not try to beat the train at the railroad crossings.  In Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, two 18-year-olds, Logan Brooke Laramore and Farah Marie Lane have been arrested and charged with third-degree burglary after police found Snapchat videos that showed the girls trespassing in the middle of the night at the Myrtle Waves Water Park. The video allegedly shows Laramore and Lane enjoying themselves at the park about 4am last Saturday. Police say Laramore can be witnessed in one of the videos admitting to jumping the fence and stating that we went down all the slides. The teens are also accused of stealing a couple of Italian ices worth $8. Police were able to find the names of the girls through their Snapchat accounts and then track them down through DMV records.  It will be easier for us to take you out of circulation. An elderly man in China was treated for a stroke after he binged on his favorite video game. The 84-year-old man was rushed to a hospital after his children found him partially paralyzed and unable to speak after playing a game on his laptop for hours. Do you hear that, kiddos?  According to a study released by Kimberly Clark, gas pump handles are the dirtiest surface that Americans encounter on the way to work. Which finally explains to me why biking to work might be the healthier option. Please support my channel by sharing the daily dose of weird news on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and other social networks. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up and be sure to subscribe if you want to see more. And click that little bell icon next to the subscribe button to be notified when I post new videos. Find even more weird news that I didn't have time for at DailyDoseOfWeirdNews.com. I'm Darren Marlar and I'll see you next time, weirdos.


In this video, we provide the solution to question number three for practice exam number two for math 1220, in which case we're given a function in the form of a table here, here's f of x, and some of the entries for x are provided here with their corresponding y coordinates. And then we're supposed to use this table of values for the function f and use it to approximate the integral from 10 to 30, which you'll notice is the first and last entries of this table here. So we want to approximate the integral from 10 to 30 of f of x dx using the trapezoidal rule t sub five here. So let's first calculate what would our delta x look like in that situation delta x would equal 30 minus 10 over five. So we end up with 20 over five delta x is for notice that the tables already set up this way. Now, for all tests, it might not be so simple, but this one does increment by four like so. And so using the trapezoid rule t five, we're going to end up with delta x divided by two times the first entry, which is negative two, plus two times the next negative six, plus two times the next negative two, plus two times. The next which is one plus two times three, plus the last one no two on that one. So we just seek to try to simplify this thing of course delta x like we saw a moment ago was four so we get four over two. Negative 12 plus eight, of course, is going to give us a negative four in that situation. As all of these numbers are divisible by two, I'm going to factor out the two for a moment, and then add these together negative six minus two is a negative eight plus one is a negative seven plus three is a negative four. So we get something like that for divided by two is the same thing as two. Here, we get negative four, so we're going to get two times negative four, which is a negative eight. So we had two times negative 12. And then lastly, our calculation turns out to be negative 24. And so we see that the correct answer would then be choice E.


Okay, we're back live here at EMC World wrapping up day two. This is SiliconANGLES exclusive coverage. We're live on the ground in Las Vegas, and this is theCUBE, our flagship program. We go out to the events, extract a signal from the noise, and we have a very special guest here. My co-host, of course, is Dave Vellante, wikibond.org, and we have our special friend and our new best friend. Our new best friend. Richard Schlesinger, a network broadcast, a real professional correspondent. You've done tons of great work. The body of work that you've done in the business has been fantastic, 48 hours, among other things. And you're here at EMC World doing some work there. Welcome to theCUBE. Thanks. This is great. This is like having the shoe on the other foot. You're interviewing me. This is theCUBE. You've interviewed us at the EMC Big Data Special. And we had a great time. Great time. You're fantastic. Dave and I were both in awe of, like, that's how a pro does it. Maybe we can up our game on theCUBE sometime. Yeah, we're hackers. It's like, I don't understand a word you guys say. You're great at it. How are you? So how's things? Things are great. I mean, I love coming to these events because it's like, I describe it as an alien universe.  So it's good to know what's going on in the tech world. And if I may coin a phrase, extract the signal from the noise. So that's always fun. So yeah, it's a whole learning experience for me. I mean, there's a treasure trove of stories here.  You let the guys like EMC look under the hood. I mean, you don't really get under the hood. But you'd have to talk to folks and do that. But there's a lot of good stories here developing. The future is unwritten. You got guys like Paul Moritz. You know, that's a really good way of saying it. History is being written as we speak, right? I've become fascinated with the whole big data thing. Big data fast data and all the challenges, the opportunities and the challenges. I mean, I really think it's going to change the world. Any observations as you look at the signals, smoke signals coming out of the show? I mean, because you have fresh perspective. You're not in the weeds like the geeks, but you're looking at it from a landscape and holistic perspective. Right, you look at it how it works. I look at it in what it can do, what the work can do. And you look at New York City, right? New York City's looking at big data. I mean, to your audience, this is old hat, but to the real world, if you will, this is huge. New York's using big data to determine where potholes need to be fixed and stuff like that. I mean, this type of thing is going to change the world. Yeah, well, one of the things that we've been tracking is, and I don't know if you saw it, but GE put a big investment into one of EMC's, Impivital and this whole internet of things and the industrial internet. Yeah, the internet of things. I was getting ready to do a couple of interviews here tomorrow and I was reading up on this. And the GE guy said that machine to machine communication is going to change the way they do business. And it's an amazing quote, if you think about it. I mean, this is general electric, for Christ's sake. It's amazing, right? General electric, and EMC sells a lot of stuff to General Electric, you know, storage and so forth, but now they're essentially partners in going to business to essentially change the world. But I mean, who called EMC General Electric last year? What's up? You? He did, John. Yeah, that's right. He's the visionary. Yeah. Well, no, but they're portfolioizing. You look at Chuchy, he's proud. And he's got four brands, four companies. That's GE in the making. If EMC continues on their torrid pace of innovation, they are the tech version of GE. But isn't it interesting though that one of the oldest industrial companies in America is now trying to get on board with big data and the analytic part of it. I just, you know, this is when we said earlier that history's being written. I mean, these are the guys who are doing it. So being here for a journalist is quite an experience. Any stories you're kicking the tires on here? Do you see any stories? You must see a lot of things popping out. Probably not for the network because, you know, general media, you know, it's hard to explain a lot of this stuff. We have done a lot of stories on the results of data innovation generally. And that's like, that's incredible.  It's unbelievable, isn't it? It's unbelievable. It's completely changed, completely changed the way we do business, which is why I thought this quote from the guy GE was interesting because he said that, you know, they know that their business is going to change. Well, I love the fact of how we met, right? So we did the, the first cube we ever did was EMC World in 2010. Yeah. And we have, you know, you see our little cameras and our crew and our equipment, we drop it in and then EMC TV starts, right? And so they're doing their whole thing. And there's so many people that want to consume this type of information. It's a real hunger for me. There's something like 5,000 people here, right? Oh, many more actually. I think it's 15 is the number. I heard 16,000. I heard 16,000. Oh, the guy who met me told me it was like 5,000. Yeah, 15,000. I thought he hadn't finished counting. But yeah, that's a lot of people. Well, Richard, what's on the plan for tomorrow? What's your schedule like here? What are some of the things you've done here? I'm doing some stuff at the CIO summit about data and security, which I'm really interested in with our COVID-19 RSA.  Oh, you were down in Atlanta? Yeah. Oh, okay. So there's how that went.  This guy's talking about it. That's the thing with Moritz. One question, and you're done. It's unbelievable.  You know, he flies his own plane.  Yeah, I know. So do I. So we talked about that. He flew down here. I expect he's a better pilot than I. A lot of data coming off those planes. He might have a faster plane than you. I would imagine. A billion dollars that he has in the bank. But is he happy? He looked happy on stage. I think, honestly, taking the shackles off from running a public company and being the Picasso to paint a fresh picture on the canvas is refreshing. I can see it in his spring and his steps. So it looks like he's refreshed and he doesn't have to work, right? I just think, and you know, Pat Gelsing. Well, these guys have to work. I mean, they don't have to work for them. Well, for the emotional. But they have to work. I mean. Well, Pat Gelsing was on theCUBE when we kind of talked to him about it. In 2010, all this stuff happened and the market's changed. But he basically said, is that, hey, I did the whole big data thing at EMC. It was my passion. I did some things and Maritz wanted to do the cloud apps thing. We ended up got caught running all this stuff here. It was distracting. So let's just give it to Gouldin and we'll go build that out. And it's like, that's what happened. I sat next to Gouldin at a dinner in Atlanta. What a fascinating guy he is.  So everything's a learning experience. I got to ask you guys while I have you. I mean, I mean. He's got to flip around on us, you know. Turn the tables back around. What do you see as the big stories here? Well, so this whole, the whole notion of storage as a box that you put data into, it's getting blown away. Yeah. And, you know, the thing, John said to me years ago, Dave, you want to know what's happening with the enterprise? Watch what's happening at Google and Amazon. And that's what's going to happen in the enterprise five or six years from now. It's exactly how it's playing out. Exactly. And that's actually one of the questions that I asked Paul was, you know, how hard was it for you to get used to the idea that, you know, you big enterprise guys can learn a lot from the consumer guys? And it was a tough, it was a tough adjustment for them. The other thing that I would share with you is that what's interesting to me is that the enterprise, people look at this enterprise space and they want to put people, the squares and the square holes and the round pegs and the round holes. And it's not the enterprise anymore. It's the world. So you have a globalization economy going on. And you also have the enterprise is irrelevant the way it used to be. It's a whole nother error. And that is being defined by a whole nother level of value creation, how computing's done and mobile and connected systems do that. And to me, looking back as a student of computing history, we are in an error now that is going to look like what IBM did in the 40s. So IBM in the 40s ran the table because they were the monolithic entity that brought computing. And what we're living in now is a monolithic entity but it's called everybody. And that's all the vendors. It's an operating system. And that's what the cloud brings. So to me, we heard that today from their CTO. Imagine a world where everything's stored for almost forever, unlimited compute power, unlimited memory. It's a little scary. And then the other thing is open source, right? Open source is basically not only free but you could do whatever you want with it is really taking the world by storm, taking the industry with them. It's so democratic. It's like, you know, when blogging first started, right? Anybody with a computer in their basement could be a publisher, right? Right. And, you know, this is sort of the same thing. It's like everybody, it's just- Wikonomics, baby. Couldn't have put it better by itself. So, you guys probably are in a hurry, but. That was great. We're live. We have unlimited air time. Give me a bottle of water, I'll stay forever. So, you see this whole open source thing is like a huge story for you, right? Yeah, so open source. What about on the non-geek side of the thing?  Yeah, I mean, I am blown away. Right, called real world. Yeah, so we just had Cheryl Chamberlain on who's EMC's Women of the World. And you're seeing conversations shift the business value. It's the business leaders now that are changing. And that's also spreading into society. People are learning how to code at a young age and it's hitting consumers. So the consumer world that we knew of Brick and Mortars, which was physical world, had nothing to do with tech. But all those actions are going to be embracing tech in a way that's not going to be geeky like this. It's going to be normal and natural. I think Google Glass is the one step towards this kind of Star Trek-like. But I think that's an indication that you're going to start to see computing and tech come to the consumers, but it has to be natural. Right, I think we talked about this when we were together the last time, which is what's it going to look like to guys like me? What's all this huge blast of data going to look like when I sit down at my laptop? It should be invisible to you at some level. It should be ultimately benefits. That's the challenge, isn't it? Yes and no, right? So we've already started to see it. Whenever you're flying back, you're flying back next to somebody. You used to fly empty planes. Data and big data is helping the airlines fill up planes. Some of the best tech values in the world. It's good in a way because they're making some money and you know, but the other hand. Richard, we got to wrap up. Great to see you. No, we got to interview you. Honreak, we'd like to have you come back. We'd love working with you and you're doing some great work. We have big admirers. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll be right back with Honreak from EMC who manages the SAP relationship. We're going to talk business, speed of business, EMC, all that business value. Quick check in with our friend, Honreak. Right back.


Everybody forced here ripping 2021 upper-deck skybox medal universe champions hobby one box number 48 random pack style We're gonna randomize right now to see who has which pack before we get started. There are 15 packs Three stacks of five. So the left stack is one through five top down And then six through 10 11 through 15. That's how that's good luck five and three eight times That's true Lane. That's very true Magic legend dock rivers eight times in the names one two three four five six Seven and eight Oliver age down to Angela G and eight times on the pack number One two three four five six seven and eight Eight down to 14 All right, there you go Oliver with pack eight Matt Z nine Brian are 15 Matt Z two lynch you with seven Matt Z Was six and ten George I three and twelve lynch you L four Laura Q has five and one Angela with 13 George I 11 and Angela with 14 Posting the results right now. I'll drop you a quick link and then we'll uh open the box here Let me drop you guys a link for prism number 71 all teams on sale in prism And if you buy a team in the the three breaks 71 72 and 73 Then that is a full case worth of that team. That's a sealed case to spread across the three breaks So Jake's here tonight. So we'll probably pull some absolute heat out of the football mixer Maybe we'll get another Steph Curry reaction If we're lucky bro last week last week close Do we pull last week again? Oh, yeah, that's right. I was moving. Yeah, I was like what I don't know I wasn't here. That's why I watched it get pulled though Pack one Yeah, I think so Matthew I think so sad to see Him be like that, uh Jane Springer reaching for the stars Pack one just sad Pack two Toby Miller fresh foundation Trevor Lawrence blast furnace Bryson to Shambo That's a Donnie's boy. Does anybody like Bryson? Pack three It's kind of weird, right Anthony that contract not looking good for the Mets three Kyle Pitts Michael Jordan skybox premium pack four Najee Harris Mack Jones metalized Naomi Osaka intimidation nation Osaka pack five Teofima Lopez Adley number six moody Lexi Thompson and a Teofima Lopez auto There we go. I don't think I pulled one of these yet Good stuff there for pack six Teofima Lopez auto Looks like looks like looks like my abs actually It's back seven It's all the crumble and I oh, yeah Did you try them this week?  What is the mom's recipe one? Pack number eight. I'll tell you after pack eight A cocoa golf fresh foundation Jalen green and Ben Simmons skybox premium It is it was an oatmeal cookie with chocolate chips peanut butter chips and caramel With like a little bit of sea salt on top dude like I think every I think I should have just ordered a six of those and a bunch of other ones Pack nine That's right. Sermon arc. Well Michael Jordan number 10 It is pretty impressive. Anthony. I mean he has been dominant for like a decade straight Bayron Laura All right, number 11 I'm the proverbial mother of the breakers So you're wishing me happy mother's day. All right. This is this is outrageous a bj boston think that's ruby to 150 bj boston Legal out of all the things that you've said that are outrageous That one that one's pretty high up on the list of most outrageous Back number 12 bj boston Shane writes mac jones blast furnace Jake were you really nice to your mom today? I was that's good Back 13 i got her boston wolf shifrin kominga isaac's hot skybox premium 14 Yeah, dude, so so my mom lives in arizona. Yeah back 14 here That was an ami Osaka on the fresh foundation with an intimidation nation on suvati You followed this team for so long illegal That's not time out worthy. It's just like Like lol very hard-worthy just so ridiculous pack 15 there That'll do it. Thanks again, everybody. We're on to some bowmen now


Hi! I'm going to have a sip of this, a sip of this. It's fantastic. Fans are meeting you here. I know that. Yeah. That's my wig. Like my solo hair. I was like, whoa. I love it. This is lovely Christmas. That's my hair. That's not my hair. That's your hair. I cut it off. It's all yours. That's not my hair. How are you guys doing? You good? Fantastic. You guys have property? It's so much property. It's so much property. Are you going to be able to nap this afternoon? Gotta work. I have to work. Places where people do not want to hear this. I think you know about that, right? The century. Thank you so much. Patty's here for her daughter. This is dedication. Are the lawyers who fought against each other for Bush and Gore in 2000? You know this? I didn't know this. The marriage that sustains family and community is the reason why you should not pay people to get married. So that we're sustaining family and community. It's like mind blowing. Just so you know they're consolidating all the scenes and trying to get free up as many for the real life as possible. Hi. Thank you. Hi. Thank you. I've been telling people that as we go down the line the organizers are convincing and crunching numbers and trying to shove people together so we can get as many of you guys in as possible. So it's all like, you know... Excellent. We got this. It's over. It's over. So we were together. It was so amazing. How was the fight? It was amazing. The judges that came in. You gotta remember, people stay on. They really wanted to be there. They really looked forward to this happening. It was a Sunday. It was a Sunday. Of course. And it was just, you know, we've been together. I guess we've been married officially now for two, three months. And you know, we are actually closer. And I didn't think that it would be possible. What's different? It's, you know what? We're closer. We feel more on each other's side. We feel accepted. It's just amazing. It is so amazing. It's certainly not about a wedding. Right. It's not even about marriage as much to me as it is about protection. Larry Kramer is the real hero. You know, he's one of the things. The crazy thing is we have like 20 some actors and it's a court case. So other than the lawyers, a lot of them have like six lines. But his six lines are going to pack a wall of it. The opposite, our side and the judge that was going to be trying it voted to allow cameras in the courtroom to tape it and to televise it. Opposing side appealed it. They took it to the United States Supreme Court, our biggest court of land and the court against our side to allow anyone to see the case. Are you doing this? What are you doing? Can I have more juice? Yes. Scott, right? Alright. Scott's sacrifice. Thank you. Thank you. It's pretty quiet. We're going to take the play. Lance, who wrote the play, is going to license the reading and you just do a reading. He says, can we give you the scripts? You cast your stars in your theatre program or people you want to put in it. You put the scripts on stand and read the play. At the end, there's a talk back and you talk about what the state of the rights. And then it's using the script and this play. This is just the first movement and the next one will be Michigan in Northwestern in Carnegie Mellon and it's mixed in a flight opera. We're going to use theatres across the country to teach people about gay rights and why this court case is important. We love the power of theater so much. You've got to do it.


Hi everybody Joe for jasky's case breaks dot com coming out to a twenty twenty one panini luminance football six box half case pick your team number six Very big. Thanks to everybody here for getting in on the action appreciate it Now if you bought at least three teams You get an entry for a chance at some break credits. We'll do that randomizer at the end We're watching the home run derby here, too I think Juan so don't show it on a going into double overtime All right, and see we mark that six so we know it's from the same case And I was saying just before we started this video. I was saying maybe whoever's throwing the ball to otani I think the guy isn't really throwing him some good. They're kind of all over the strike zone Oh, yeah, sorry. I think whenever we watch live stuff like this Either i'm ahead for some reason or your stream might lag behind a little bit So apologies for that But I try to keep the volume a little bit lower so it doesn't for my commentary might be a little ahead Wow, so double overtime And we got points right here We'll randomize that to uh one person in the break Winner take all on the points And we're starting off with a nice auto mac jones 16 out of 50 That'll be for the patriots all over smith. I guess the double overtime's a swing off There's Jarvis landry to 50. Yeah And there's jamar chase to 35 so you can see that in luminance They're still in their college gear, but they'll have their pro teams attached to it right there, which I think helps the shipping team a lot I'll go to the bangles friend and o'neill and we got a justin herbert jumbo relic Second year justin herbert for michael and the chargers Ryan a thinks otani's done he went three for three in the swing off so otani would have Would they do another swing off if if otani goes three for three? That's the 99 for uh for atlanta javien hawkins and elijah molden Is your next auto to 349 Titans that's going to be for the x-line We've got a nice trade lance right here too. That's pretty cool Be for the niners, of course And that's going to go to the x-line also with the niners Let's see See what otani can do in a three swing swing off He's got to go three for three to keep it going. Is there another swing off? I think this just keeps going swing offs right from here on Oh, that's one swing. It's over That's kind of what I think too. I think I think the the pitchers wasn't It wasn't as consistent as some of the other guys throw into some of these guys Oh more points, huh? So again, that'll be winner take all on the points And there's the shone Watson 35 There's killian hill to 299 for green bay There's a zack wilson rookie card here for the jets Zachary And look at this Trevor Lawrence autograph 16 out of 75 And Zachary picked up the jaguars and the jets the two teams remaining Got the break credit for grabbing those two teams and gets rewarded with a trevor laurence last spot mojo strikes again 70 percent of the time last spot mojo hits 100 percent of the time Nice. Congrats. It's uh, it's 100 tana hill Got antonio gibson 75 and we've got a uh brave and jordan For houston the x-line Oh dang ends. Good eye. Yeah, that's jersey number two Is he gonna be 16 for the jaguars as well? Has he announced his number yet? so one so to advances Now larry fits gerald to 299 and daz newson Is your bears autograph? That's gonna go to jeff and the bears Next box. All right, there's matt ryan to 25 Kyler Murray to 299 and we got a tua relic For the uh dolphins. That's gonna go to patrick You got Uh gray newson to 299 and willy mcginnis. It is your autograph 16 out of 49 For oliver smith and the patriots Caleb farley to 35 for tennessee The newson goes to cleveland the mac jones, of course goes to the patriots And we got sheen viewshell For the chiefs to 349 the x-line with kent city I'll traves a tn to the jaguars to 99 and We got elisha moore year one autograph blue ink auto I think elisha moore is should be a niner on the checklist I mean which elisha The niners have don't the niners have an elisha. This is jets elisha moore And that will be for zack. That's another one of his last spot mojo teams Halfway through this half case break We do have one more uh case uh break of luminance left and that's our last one So the luminance the last what what what break number is that last luminance? So we're doing pick your team six right now And then we got pick your team seven with four teams left And that's the last one eight actually filled before seven, but they're from the same case Yeah, there's the elisha right there year one blue ink auto It's Chris Evans to 50 Clyde Edwards E. Laird to 299 and an Antonio Gibson Right relic for the x-line Uh, there's Stevenson to 299 and behind him is Is austin echler five out of 15 for the bolts It goes to michael galucci and the chargers all right onwards Mr. Vonte Williams to 99 And behind him is philip franks 305 out of 349 for the atl chris frieze with the falcons Well, I had three picks folks for the homerun derby Mancini soto and trevor story three of the four three of the final four so i'm feeling pretty good unless pete londas only one i didn't have pete londso There's camara to 299 And nice jamar chase 74 out of 250 bangles that's for you brandon o'neal Nice rookie auto reunited with joe burrow all right two more boxes to go All right. Good luck got 100 lights out erin donnell We've got brandon cooks to 299 and we got an antonio gibson relic for the x-line Like as soon as I turn these around they're gonna go back the other way There's josh allen to 75 and behind him is jc horn. Nice year one autograph blue ink These year one autographs don't have their pro teams attached to them So i've not learned all of these players just yet panthers And that'll be for patrick davis and carolina to trade lance There's a cornell powell to 299 and behind him Is a jalen philips autograph 184 out of 349 For the dolphins it's going to go to patrick evans And that was the one brandon said he was that's the card he was looking for the chase he got it To 299 minka fits patrick and we got a jalen waddle Nice year one blue ink autograph. He's reunited with uh with tua in miami patrick evans with the dolphins Just just for that auto I get to go to your wedding nice You can send the invite right right to this address here at our shop in hermosa beach Wait, oh, I forgot that team usa game was on jose. They lost again. What's going on? I think these are like the gold cup group stages, right? All right last box So no bonus for trevor story. He's holding at 10 Mancini's up Yeah, peter lanzo is pretty good to haydee What's going on here? Well, I know they won today. I think that game was today. No, they beat haydee won one nil What group are we in? We're in canada united states haydee and martin k Oh for basketball Yeah, I did notice they lost the other day. What's going on? Wake up guys There's a tua relic for miami. That's going to be for patrick jk dobbins of 10 that'll be for erin billingsley and the ravens drabryl cox to 299 and a nick bolton That's for kc once again. That'll be for the x-line josh jake of 299 and that reveals a another philip frank's auto Going to chris and the falcons tony cadarius to 35 and a cadarius tony that is not tony cadarius blue ink auto nice on card year one auto And he of course is a new york football giant big blue the jven And that'll be for daniel haze and the new york football giants And there you go ladies and gentlemen Now let's give away those points and let's give away some money So let's flip back to the screen for some uh new dice Everyone's got a shot at the point winner take all on the points And if you bought at least three teams All right, this is the next break right here if you bought at least three teams you get one entry six teams two entries nine teams three entries 12 teams someone i don't think anyone got 12 teams but 12 teams would get you Four entries for a shot at break credit So let's alphabetize your names by your first names here daniel haze bought three teams that's an entry the x-line bought six teams that's two entries michael bought three teams that's an entry patrick got six teams that's two entries Oh, that's kind of a small list there for a lot of break credit All right, so let's gather this group of names right here Wait, those are different patricks Good i patrick davis you get one entry patrick evans With an entry right there. Thanks brennan. All right, so I think I got it davis and evans with an entry each There you go. Yeah, you owe brennan. O'Neill a stake All right, let's copy those names get them into this blank list here and use the same dice roll For both lists since a full 12 times six and a six one two three four five six seven eight And 12th and final time this is for the points olver smith after 12 times you're going to get those two 150 point cards And after 12 times it's going to be top three Get a hundred dollars break credit each six and a six 12 times one two six seven eight nine 10 11 And 12th and final time top three after 12 is daniel and the patricks patrick evans and patrick davis. Congrats to you Um sad times for josh and michael, but i appreciate you getting in on the action Thanks everybody. I'm joe for jasby's case breaks.com. We'll see you next time for the next break. Bye. Bye


that fig security Simon Michelle who joins us for a look at the bond markets because Simon has been pretty interesting for bond markets over the past week with all these comments coming from the Fed Stanley Fisher speaking yet again overnight that's right and good afternoon and he's basically pulled back a little bit on his rather bullish comments that led the market to react a little over excitedly on the back of and he said what we all know and that is that the path in interest rates in the US is down to the strength of the US economy surprise surprise so um look i think uh you know that excitement we had at the beginning of the week on the back of Janet Yellen's speech uh has sort of pulled back and we've seen yields pull back uh as well it does seem like they are trying to get a message across though i mean maybe a little slap on the rest for for going a little too far originally but but certainly they are trying to get a message across of of higher rates right that's right they're certainly preparing the market for that and uh you know they want the market to be aware that they could go um obviously they've had september uh mentioned there that's not looking very likely i think more likely it is a december but unfortunately the data when it comes out just is not matching that uh that commentary really and you know inflation very soft growth very soft that's offset by employment the job market looking good and consumer uh demand of the US looking pretty good too so yeah we're walking a bit of a double-edged sword at the moment couple of issuances to look at coca-cola taking advantage of some low rates in in europe absolutely we keep talking about negative yields in europe well it's a it's a wonderful place to issue at the moment and coca-cola got a 20-year issue away at a rate of 1.12 percent so very cheap funding for a long period of time we've seen pepsicoe issue there as well uh and domestically i'll just mention as well we had a asex listed ozzy company here cube uh looking to issue as well a seven year looks like that's been well over subscribed so some some good options here for domestic investors as well interesting all right so michelle appreciate that thank you thanks ingrid so michelle there from figure securities with the latest on the