HashiCorp CEO David McJannet | Powering the Multi-Cloud Paradigm
发布时间 2022-06-14 17:12:28 来源
摘要
Greylock general partner Jerry Chen speaks with HashiCorp CEO David McJannet about the proliferation of cloud services that requires a multi-cloud approach.
Founded in 2012, HashiCorp is an provider of products that are foundational to mission-critical cloud applications and infrastructure. As such, the company has become an essential partner to numerous organizations ranging from startups to the Big 3 cloud providers. It is both a competitor and a collaborator, and is perhaps the best representation of the open-source, multi-cloud paradigm in which almost all companies now operate.
You can read a transcript of this interview here: https://greylock.com/greymatter/powering-the-multi-cloudparadigm/
You can find the entire Castles in the Cloud project here: https://greylock.com/castles/
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
Hi, everyone. Welcome to Gray Matter, the podcast from Gray Lockery, shared stories about company builders and business leaders. I'm Jerry Chen, General Printing Gray Lock.
大家好，欢迎收听Gray Matter这个来自Gray Lockery的播客节目。我们将分享企业创始人和商业领袖的故事。我是Jerry Chen，是Gray Lock的总印刷师。
Today, my guest is David McJennet, CEO of Hashee Corp. Hashee Corp is one of the defining companies in the cloud. We're super excited to have David today. Hashee was started in 2012 and went public last year, and it's been one of the category defining cloud infrastructure cloud open source companies.
今天我的客人是David McJennet，他是Hashee公司的CEO。Hashee公司是云计算领域内非常有影响力的公司之一。我们非常激动能够邀请David来参加节目。Hashee公司成立于2012年，去年上市，是云基础设施和开源云计算领域内的优秀公司之一。
I've had the privilege of work with David for many years. Dave and I worked together first at VMware over 10 years ago, and then he was briefly at EIR at Gray Lock. David, thank you for coming on the podcast today.
我有幸与David一起工作了很多年。我们最初在VMware一起工作了十多年，然后他短暂地在Gray Lock的EIR工作过。David，谢谢你今天参加播客。
Thanks for having me. It has been 10 years shockingly, but it's probably slightly more.
谢谢你让我来。惊讶的是已经过去了10年，但实际上可能会更长一点。
It's been 10 years and obviously the news, a few weeks ago, of VMware Broadcom acquisition. I want to talk about all things cloud, but maybe just riff about our times there. And Cloud Foundry V fabric is how Unifers came working together where we try to build this first effort around cross cloud, multi cloud, software. What do you think we got right back then? And what do you think we got wrong?
已经过去了十年，前几周出现了VMware Broadcom并购的消息。我想谈谈所有与云有关的事情，但也许只是简单谈谈我们曾经历的时光。而Cloud Foundry V fabric是Unifers合作的方式，我们试图构建跨云、多云软件的第一个尝试。你认为我们当时做得对吗？又认为我们做错了什么呢？
To me, there's such a consistent pattern to this stuff of existing spending categories, transitioning from old world to new world. And essentially what Cloud Foundry was a bet that the app server mark, but basically how people were going to run and deploy applications was going from a world of like web logic, web sphere, maybe Tomcat, to a world of this sort of highly curated runtime platform, which at that time we were just sort of messing around the wording with as a platform as a service. And so that turns out the platform as a service notion is just a modern version of an app server. And I think we got that right.
对我来说，这种现有支出类别从旧世界向新世界转变的模式非常一致。基本上，Cloud Foundry是一个关于应用服务器市场的赌注。但基本上，人们运行和部署应用程序的方式已经从像web logic、web sphere或者Tomcat这样的世界转变为高度精选的运行时平台，当时我们只是在用平台即服务这样的术语来玩弄着这个概念。因此，平台即服务概念实际上是app服务器的现代版本。我认为我们做对了。
I think we also got right the idea that developers just want to be able to do a CF push rather than declare all the infrastructure that other pins that are applicated. They just want to push that application element. I think that part got right.
我认为我们也正确理解了开发人员只希望能够进行 CF 推送而不是声明其他应用程序使用的所有基础设施的想法。他们只想要推送该应用程序元素。我认为这一部分是正确的。
I think Cloud Foundry then became a thing. In fact, we were joking about how that got started. It's actually amazingly simple. I have these things you sort of did ideated become these things. I remember the picture on the whiteboard of what ultimately became Cloud Foundry sort of got propagated around the internet. I think you got the design from 99 designs or something similar. It was not very complicated at all. It got started, but it turned out to be pretty right. Best 99 dollars you spent on my academics back then.
我认为Cloud Foundry随后成为了一件事情。实际上，我们当时在开玩笑，探讨这是怎么开始的。事实上，它非常简单。我那时有一些点子，然后它们就成为了这些东西。我记得在白板上画的那张最终成为Cloud Foundry的图在互联网上广泛传播。我认为你从99designs或类似的网站上获取了设计。它其实并不复杂。它开始了，但结果非常正确。那时你花在我学术上的99美元花得很值得。
So maybe we'll segue that to this journey to Hashtagcorp. I mean, you did a brief stand a couple of the companies before landing at Greylock as EIR. We're going to get the weeds around Cloud and open search and Hashtagcorp. But for those listening to podcasts that may be less familiar about deep, deep infrastructure technology, tell me a little bit about Hashtagcorp. Were the products you sell and how did they work together?
或许我们可以把话题转到 Hashtagcorp 的旅程上。我的意思是，在加入 Greylock 之前，你曾经短暂地为几家其他公司效力过。我们将会深入探讨云端和开放式搜索以及 Hashtagcorp 的细节。但是，有些听众可能不太了解深入的基础设施技术，你能简单介绍一下 Hashtagcorp 吗？你们销售的产品有哪些？它们又是如何共同工作的？
And sure, so our course thesis was that the infrastructure transition underway is from people running private data centers to people running Cloud, which is just a different operating model. It's kind of very different paradigms for the core aspects of infrastructure. And so we provide a suite of products that address the challenges of running and securing apps in distributed systems, i.e. outside of the data center.
当然，我们的课程论文的观点是，基础设施的转变正在向从运营私人数据中心转向运营云端的人，这只是另一种运营模式。这对于基础设施核心方面来说，是一种非常不同的范式。因此，我们提供一套产品以解决在分布式系统中运行和保护应用程序的挑战，即在数据中心之外。
We took a very unique view of the world, which is let's create one product that does one thing, and then another product that does another thing. And you can use them together. Originally, the team said, I think there are actually four problems that we need to solve to run Cloud infrastructure. So let's try and solve all four of them. There are ones around infrastructure provisioning without became terraform. One's around the identity-based security of things in Cloud.
我们对世界有一种非常独特的看法，那就是让我们创造一个能完成一件事情的产品，然后再创造另一个能完成另一件事情的产品，你可以将它们组合使用。最初，团队认为我们需要解决四个问题来运行云基础设施。因此，让我们试着解决它们中的全部四个问题。其中一个是关于基础设施供应的问题，而没有使用terraform。另一个问题则是关于云中基于身份的安全性。
I can this thing talk to this thing? I don't know what it's like. What's its identity? That's the core paradigm of security in the Cloud is identity-based. And that is vault. Then the question becomes, how do I network it all together? This thing, once to talk to this thing, is it allowed to? Well, vault tells me that. But the actual connecting of it is what console does. So it's a modern take on networking. And then the fourth problem to solve is how do I then run compute jobs across that distributed fleet?
我可以让这个东西和那个东西交流吗？我不知道它是什么样子的。它的身份是什么？这是云安全的核心范式——基于身份。这就是保管库。然后问题就变成了，我如何联系所有这些东西？这个东西想要和那个东西交流，它是否被允许？保管库告诉我答案。但实际连接它们的工作是控制台所做的。所以这是现代化的网络处理方式。然后要解决的第四个问题是，我如何在分布式网络中运行计算任务？
So those four problems, basically, infrastructure, security, networking, and then the runtime are the four problems that have to get solved in Cloud. And so, AeroGo, the hashie stack was born. So these are actually independent products that were created. But you generally use them together. So today, we see companies that run a 20,000 server of state. They run these products to underpin them all. And it basically acts as one throbbing humming distributed compute fabric with nomads, scheduling jobs across the top. So pretty complex distributed system stuff. But it decomposes into really four core products that underpin it.
总体而言，基础设施、安全性、网络和运行时是云计算需要解决的四个问题。因此，AeroGo的hashie堆栈应运而生。实际上，这些都是独立的产品，但通常一起使用。今天，我们看到一些拥有2万个服务器的企业使用这些产品来支撑它们的业务。它们基本上是一个脉动而鸣的分布式计算织物，nomads可在其上面安排工作。因此，它是一个相当复杂的分布式系统，但其本质上分解为四个支撑它的核心产品。
Yeah, I mean, those four core things, identity, security, networking, infrastructure, I have rift on, have been the core paradigm from the first mainframe to the mini computer, to the PC, to the Cloud, that you always need compute, you always need network, that you always need identity, you always need infrastructure. And what happens is every time there's this platform shift, these elements get rehydrated into different technologies.
是啊，我的意思是，身份、安全、网络、基础设施这四个核心领域，从第一台大型计算机到小型计算机，再到个人电脑和云计算，始终如一，你总需要计算力，总需要网络，总需要身份验证，总需要基础设施。每次出现平台转变，这些元素就会在不同的技术中重新以不同的形式存在。
But to your point, I think the genius of hashie corp was one, you identify these are the, you know, called atomic elements, or the stem cells of the cloud that can either work independently and some of your customers do, but also work together as a stack, because the evolution to this cloud comes at different paces, different rates for different customers. And so your ability to have customers either start with vault, or start with console, or start with a telepharm, and then evolve or time embracing, you know, all four parts is super interesting.
针对您的观点，我认为Hashie公司的天才之处在于，他们确定了云计算的基本组成部分，也就是所谓的“原子元素”或是云计算的干细胞，这些元素既可以独立运行（而且有些客户确实是这么做的），也可以作为一个整体运作（stack），因为不同的客户在迁移到云上的速度和方式各不相同。而您们能够提供Vault、Console或Telepharm等产品，使得客户可以通过起点不同，并随着时间的推移逐渐接受你们的整个产品线，这是非常有意思的。
I think that's one of the things you guys got right, that we didn't get right at CloudFoundry, for example. Exactly. Like all platform tech, again, in hindsight, gets adopted the same way. It's about balancing insertion point versus big picture vision. So what I just described, you know, imagine, and this is literally what we see in our customers. Like if you're playing a game, or if you're, you know, sending a message to your friend, or if you're streaming a processing payment, it is going through our stuff.
我认为这是你们做对了的一件事情，在CloudFoundry 中我们没有做对。事实也确实如此，就像所有的平台技术一样， hindsight 来看，都是采用相同的方式。重要的是要平衡插入点和整体视野。所以我刚刚描述的情况，你们可以想象，这也正是我们的客户所见的。比如，如果你在玩游戏、给朋友发信息、或是进行支付处理，这些都是通过我们的技术来实现的。
And what it's doing is a basically federated feed of thousands of servers that that customer is running. And they put this stuff on top, and it's basically like having a single computer look like, you know, across a thousand different machines, and then finding that open slots to drop in things, where there's processing space, in a secure way, and network, etc. So that's what it looks like at scale. That's pretty sophisticated stuff. But that's not where most people start. It's too big of a vision for them to get there, to have 20,000 servers wired together like this. So you have to determine insertion point, which is why this sort of Unix philosophy worked really, really well.
它的功能就是基本上是成千上万个服务器的联合订阅，客户正在运行这些订阅。他们在上面放置这些东西，基本上就像单个计算机横跨一千个不同的机器，然后找到打开的插槽以投入处理空间和网络的安全等方面。这是在规模上看起来的样子。这是相当复杂的东西。但这不是大多数人开始的地方。对他们来说，这是一个太大的愿景，他们达不到像这样联接20,000台服务器。因此，您必须确定插入点，这就是为什么这种类Unix哲学非常成功的原因。
You know, how about you just start with the infrastructure provisioning problem. Let's just start with that one. And I can walk you over the course of years into that broader picture vision once you're ready for it. It's just too big of a vision to sell it because it's such a comparative. Cloud Foundry conversely says, here's your black box. And people go, that's an awfully big black box. Like, what's it doing? And you go, don't worry about it. It just works. So what if it's what it doesn't?
你知道吗，为什么不先从基础架构规划问题开始呢？我们就从这个问题开始，等你准备好了，我再带你逐步了解更广阔的局面。这个愿景实在是太过于庞大了，因为它太过于比较。相比之下，Cloud Foundry则是说，“这是你的黑盒子。”人们会说，“这个黑盒子实在太大了，它在干什么？”而你可以回答，“别担心，它会正常运行。”那如果它不能正常运行呢？
And so there's just a lot of reluctance. And it's very hard to get a bottoms up adoption motion when I'm just selling you one big thing. Now, people want to be able to adopt the elements and walk your way to it. The insertion, or I keep preaching like the sharpness of the wedge with matters, right? It's the pointy tip of the spear or the sharper wedge. And oftentimes, with startups, you want to have a very narrow wedge. You'll land and shirt with low friction. You always want low friction in high friction out, right? As a platform company, an infrastructure company. And many startups fail because they see the second or third act where they want to be. But they forget that you don't get to third act or you don't have a very good wedge to land on.
因此，人们存在很多犹豫和不愿意尝试的情况。如果我只向你销售一个大项目，很难达到自下而上的采用效果。现在，人们希望能够采用其中的元素，逐步实现目标。插入，或者像我一直说的那样，是锋利的楔形物很重要。它是矛头或者更锐利的楔形物。通常来说，创业公司希望有一个很窄的楔形物。你要以低摩擦着陆并穿上衬衫。你总是希望低摩擦、高摩擦，对不对？作为一个平台公司、基础设施公司，很多创业公司失败了，因为他们只看到第二个或第三个阶段，而忘记了必须先有一个好的着陆点。
I think the nice thing what you guys built at Hashie Corp was this portfolio of three or four different wedges. One is historically an open source, especially in the cloud, especially in developers. And the history of Hashie Corp's obviously tied with open source. And I'd love to hear about how Hashie Corp thinks about open source, both investment ecosystem, then balancing that with a product you guys build and the business models around open source be it enterprise version, you sell, versus a cloud-hosted version.
我认为Hashie公司建立的好东西之一就是这个由三到四个不同楔子组成的投资组合。其中一个在历史上是开源的，特别是在云端和开发者中。显然，Hashie公司的历史与开源有关。我很想了解Hashie公司如何思考开源，包括投资生态系统，然后平衡这一点与您们所建立的产品和围绕开源的商业模式之间的关系，无论是企业版的销售，还是云托管版本。
I'm kind of a disciple of the view that you can't build an infrastructure company today that is an open source. That's just my particular view. I think VMware was the last one. He was built at a time where the source really was and a thing.
我有一种观点，认为今天你不能创造一个开源的基础设施公司，这是我的个人看法。我认为VMware是最后一个。它是在源代码真正存在的时代建立的。
I just think it's hard to build an infrastructure company that is an open source because so many people rely on it. And they actually, they needed to be open source in many respects. So our view is always the products we're going to be open source. And we authentically commit to that.
我认为开源基础设施公司很难建立，因为很多人都依赖它。但实际上，许多方面都需要开放源代码。因此，我们的观点是我们将开放源代码的产品。我们真诚地承诺这一点。
And I think that the approach you take is you say, all right, what's the role of open source? There's a development role. And there's a distribution role. On the development side, how can we construct a project where we can invite people to collaborate with us to aggregate more people to build things that we would otherwise build while retaining control of the direction of the project? That's there's a science and an art to that.
我认为你采取的方法是，先问一下开放源代码的作用是什么？有开发作用和分发作用。在开发方面，我们如何建立一个项目，可以邀请人们和我们一起协作，聚集更多的人，建造我们本来不会建造的东西，同时保持对项目方向的控制？这需要一定的科学和艺术。
Short version is it kind of comes to the architecture of those projects. For example, you'll notice Terraform, there's Terraform Core. And then there's the provider ecosystem for what plugs into it. There are thousands of contributors to the providers. There are very few people that contribute to Core. And that's where the way the model works, well for everybody. So number one, it's about getting development levers. And that's one path.
简单来说，这与项目的架构有关。例如，你会注意到 Terraform，它有 Terraform Core 和插件生态系统。对于插件，有成千上万的贡献者，但对于 Core，贡献者很少。这就是模型的工作方式。因此，第一步是获取开发的杠杆。这是其中一种方法。
The second part is how do you drive standardization? That's really what you're trying to achieve because you get distribution and practitioners through open source. There's no friction to the consumption of it. But you also get ecosystem standardization. So the real magic is something like Terraform today is that there are thousands of Terraform providers. So if you want to use Terraform to provision something, you know there's a Terraform provider for it. Whether it's for provisioning stuff on Amazon or whether it's for configuring your GitHub account. Why? Because someone is built to provider for it. And actually, it's the standardization that you're trying to accomplish with open source that is just like why would someone build a plugin for V-Sphere? Or like a driver for V-Sphere?
第二部分是你如何推动标准化？这确实是你所努力实现的目标，因为通过开源你可以获得分发和实践者。消费它没有任何摩擦。但是，你也会获得生态系统的标准化。所以现在像 Terraform 这样的真正神奇之处在于，有数千个 Terraform 提供者。所以，如果你想使用 Terraform 来创建某些东西，你知道有一种 Terraform 提供者可以使用。无论是在 Amazon 上还是为了配置你的 GitHub 帐户。为什么？因为有人为此构建了提供程序。实际上，你试图通过开源实现的标准化就像是为什么有人会为 V-Sphere 构建插件或驱动程序一样？
You wouldn't until all of your customers required it. But in this way, you can actually activate the ecosystem around it. So actually, you have to authentically commit to that, saying like, I'm not trying to make money out of that. I'm genuinely just trying to drive standardization. Because I think it's good for everybody. I think that's sort of point number two.
你并不会在所有客户都要求之前去实现它。但是，这样做可以实际上启动它周围的生态系统。因此，你必须真正地承诺，说像这样的话：“我不是在试图通过这个赚钱。我只是真诚地想推动标准化。因为我认为这对每个人都有好处。”这就是第二点。
Point number one is using a four development point. Number two is actually authentically committing to that idea that we're not trying to monetize that group. And we're genuinely just, we think it's good for everybody to standardization. Then number three is about what's your commercial model?
第一点是使用四个发展点。第二点实际上是真正致力于这个想法，即我们不试图将那个群体商品化。我们真正的想法是标准化对每个人都有好处。第三点是关于你的商业模式是什么？
And I actually loved the comment that Mitchell made years ago. He goes, we realized early on that if you build a really big open source ecosystem to our community and then try to monetize that community, you have to reconcile that you've not aggregated the community of people with a predilection not to pay you anything. And I think there's a truth to that.
我很喜欢米切尔多年前说的那个评论。他说，我们很早就意识到，如果你建立了一个非常庞大的开源生态系统来服务我们的社区，然后试图从这个社区赚钱，你必须认识到你没有聚集到那些倾向于不支付任何费用的人群。我认为这是有道理的。
So you don't try and monetize them. What you try and do is try to come up with a model that monetizes the usage of those products inside an enterprise inside some other methods. But you're not trying to monetize the same people. What we did is we had the philosophy of, hey, let's say everything the practitioner needs is open source. We don't hold that back.
因此，您不会尝试从这些产品获得利润。您尝试的是制定一种模型，在企业内部使用这些产品的方式中获得盈利。但您不会尝试从同一群人获得利润。我们的理念是，让所有从业者需要的内容都是开源的。我们不会阻止这一点。
But everything the organization needs, well, that will go sell that to the organizations that are using this tech. And you think about that paradigm. It's actually just a different set of problems. You go from an individual to a team to an organization as you could get further organizational complexity. The team problem is one of collaboration. How do we collaborate around this thing? OK, that's an opportunity. Number two is policy and governance for the organization who did do what? Audit trails and all the rest. So that's how we think about it.
但是，组织所需要的一切东西都会被销售给正在使用这项技术的组织。想想这个范式，它实际上只是一组不同的问题。随着组织的复杂性越来越高，你从个人转向团队和组织。团队问题是团队合作的问题。我们如何围绕这件事进行协作？好的，这是一个机会。第二个问题是组织的政策和治理，他们做了什么？审计追踪等等。这就是我们的思考方式。
So the commercial value is around that latter part. For most successful open source companies, it's sort of monetizing the organizational complexity. And I think that's pretty straightforward to the users. It's pretty honest and straightforward. Now, do you do that in the form of a managed product? Or do you do that in the form of open core products? I think everybody's preference is to the in form of a managed product. Let me have my cloud service for Kafka, for Confluent, or for technology, ABRC.
因此，商业价值大多体现在后半部分。对于大多数成功的开源公司而言，它们通过将组织复杂性用商业方式实现赚钱。我认为这对用户来说很直观、诚实、简单明了。现在问题是，你是以托管产品的形式进行，还是以开放核心产品的形式进行？我认为大家都更倾向于以托管产品的形式来进行。比如，让我拥有我的云服务，针对Kafka、Confluent或ABRC技术。
But I think you have to reconcile what your buyers want first. So it turns out people's appetite for consuming a managed database is actually pretty high because there's only one app using that database. At the infrastructure layer, it's just sort of a different beast. If vault goes down, the lights go off for all of your company, not just one application. So as a result, the bar is just much, much higher to consume that as a service. Turns out the market will tell you whether it wants to consume your products as a service.
但我认为你必须先调和一下你的买家想要什么。因为只有一个应用程序使用该数据库，所以人们消费托管数据库的愿望实际上相当高。在基础设施层面上，这只是一种不同的前提条件。如果 vault 崩溃了，你公司的所有人都会受到影响，而不仅仅是一个应用程序。因此，把它作为一种服务消费的难度就要高得多。事实证明，市场会告诉你，它是否想要以服务的方式消费你的产品。
In our case, it didn't want to early on. They wanted us to have a self-managed version that they could manage themselves in enterprise form. I'll maybe stop there because I can talk about this forever. No, I mean, I think you said two or three threads are super fascinating. And it's probably Armada Mitchell, the two co-founders, had that great insight of open source seeing all the service area that practitioner wanted cared about and really committing to that. And then I think you came in in 2016, was it? 2016, yes. 2016 as CEO. And you had insight where like Armada Mitchell had this great insight and understood the developer aesthetic.
在我们的情况下，一开始他们不想早做。他们希望我们有一个自我管理的版本，他们可以在企业形式下管理。我可能会在这里停下来，因为我可以一直谈论这个话题。不，我的意思是，我想你说有两到三个主题非常迷人。这可能是Armada Mitchell这两位联合创始人具有开源洞见，看到了实践者所关注的所有服务领域，并真正致力于此。然后我想你在2016年进来担任CEO，对于Armada Mitchell具有很好的洞见和理解开发者的审美。
You had the great insight into the organizational requirements of the monetization, I think the three of you made to the great team because that separation of the personas practitioner, like the developer versus the organization, and had different needs identifying the organization paid for it. And what those features are and making sure you don't open source those features versus what the practitioner cared about open source those things. It's kind of church and state. We actually refer to it as church and state. And those things can't cross.
你对货币化组织需求有很深刻的洞察能力，我认为你们三个人组成了一支很出色的团队，因为你们将角色扮演者和组织分开，识别组织支付的不同需求和功能，确保不开源那些功能，而让从事者关注开源那些东西。这就像是教堂和国家的区别，我们通常称之为教堂和国家，这两者不能混淆。
I'm afraid ask what's religion and what's government? Which is church and state. And then we would both know. Right? I think clearly the practitioner is the religion. And the organization is the government, regulating it. In this cloud world, we're increasingly cashier quirk as a fast growing cloud business. Confluent has a fast growing cloud business. Mongo Atlas is a fast growing cloud business. Snowflake is not open source at all. 100% cloud business. I'm involved in companies like Docker, Rockset, Doc's open source, Rockset's 100% cloud, Cronus fears, open source, but then all cloud. Do you need to be open source anymore to win in the cloud game at all? Or yes or no? I think it's harder to drive market standardization, depending on what your aspirations are.
我怕问一下什么是宗教和政府？哪一个是教会和国家。这样我们就都会知道了，对吧？我认为实践者就是宗教，而组织就是政府，对它进行调节。在这个云计算的世界中，我们越来越像是一个快速增长的云计算业务。Confluent有一个快速增长的云计算业务。Mongo Atlas 也有一个快速增长的云计算业务。Snowflake根本就不是开源的，它是一个100%的云业务。我参与过像Docker、Rockset和Doc's Open Source这样的公司，Rockset是100%云业务，Cronus fears是开源的，但是也都是云计算业务。您是否仍然需要开源才能在云计算游戏中获胜？是还是否？我认为，这取决于您的愿望是什么，更难驱动市场标准化。
So again, these companies, they get married together. And they are in fact very different. And I would pause that there's a big difference between the application layers. So databases, you know, message queuing and middleware are basically the runtime layer. As opposed to core infrastructure, which is security networking and the infrastructure itself. So let's talk about the top layer, which I'm referring to as sort of the app infrastructure. You don't have to standardize an entire market to build a business. I mean, look at Snowflake. They're one of multiple data warehouses. Look at Confluent. They're one of multiple message queuing options I have. Look at Kubernetes. That's one of many runtime platforms that are out there. And so I think in that instance, you actually don't need to be open source. I don't believe.
因此，这些公司再次合并在一起。事实上，它们非常不同。大家可能会发现，应用层之间有很大的差异。数据库、消息队列和中间件基本上是运行时层，而核心基础设施则是安全性、网络和基础设施本身。现在我们来谈谈顶层，我将其称为应用基础设施层。你不必要标准化整个市场来创业。我们可以看看 Snowflake。它们其中一家数据仓库。再看看 Confluent，他们是我可以选择的多个消息队列选项之一。还有 Kubernetes，它是众多运行平台之一。因此，我认为在这种情况下，实际上你不需要开源。我不这么认为。
At the core infrastructure layer, it turns out, like there's only one way to do TCP. There's only one way to do firewalls. There's only one way to do networking. It all works the same way. So I think there tends to be stand to win at the infrastructure layer. You sort of need standardization, because I'm going to have a variety of applications, but I can't have different ways of doing networking. So I think those kind of need to be open source. And so the adoption patterns are being subtly different, too.
在核心基础架构层面，TCP（传输控制协议）只有一种方式，防火墙也只有一种方式，网络也只有一种方式。它们都遵循相同的工作原理，因此在基础架构层面上应该有标准化。因为我会有各种各样的应用程序，但我不能有不同的网络方式。因此，这些标准应该是开源的。因此，采用的模式也有微妙的不同。
And I think there's a nuance that really matters here, which is at the app infrastructure layer, so databases, et cetera, middleware. It's very app driven. So I have an app that I want to be built in Kubernetes. I have an app that I want to do message queuing in this modern way. I have a set of apps that I want to do data warehousing with. Versus the infrastructure sells for all your apps. So there's a very different motion. And I say the app that I type for consuming in a cloud service, the services a single app, is kind of OK, because if that service goes down like that, sucks, but my lights still stay on. Versus at the infrastructure layer, there's just a different risk tolerance.
我认为这里有一个非常重要的细微差别，这就是应用程序基础设施层，例如数据库、中间件等等。这非常应用程序驱动。所以，对于想要在Kubernetes中构建的应用程序、想要以现代的方式进行消息排队的应用程序、想要进行数据仓储的一组应用程序等，都需要考虑这一层。相比之下，基础设施面向的是所有应用程序的销售。因此，动作截然不同。我说，在云服务中使用的一款应用程序，如果其服务崩溃了，虽然很糟糕，但灯还是亮着的。不过，在基础设施层，风险承受力则完全不同。
Enter the framework then becomes to your point, how many of the things do you touch, right, or integrate or depend upon it? Like a single CRM app, notably, there's been tries of like open source CRM, like sugar CRM, et cetera. That has never worked out the same as other layers.
进入框架后，你触及、正确使用、整合或依赖于多少事物？比如一个单一的客户关系管理应用，特别是像sugar CRM这样的开源CRM尝试过，但是这从未像其他层面那样成功过。
The lower level of the stack, clearly like a Kubernetes or a Docker, the more open source you have to be. The lower down you get, the more important it is. You know, the early days are hash-y.
栈的较低层，像Kubernetes或者Docker一样，你需要越来越多地开源。这越往下越重要。你知道，早期的日子比较复杂。
Tell us about the foundational early customers. They really help hash-y get his footing, get started, and help sharpen this sort, if you will, to polish what the products became. Be kind of curious, what was the inception customers and how has that changed over time?
告诉我们一些最初的核心客户。这些客户在Hash-y的起步阶段起到了很大的帮助，帮助Hash-y找到了方向，并且对产品进行了改进。我们很好奇，最初的客户是如何产生的，这种情况随着时间的推移有何变化？
Yeah, I go back to kind of the thesis for business building. In my view, it's very consistent. It's about old world, new world transitions, architecturally, that create the opportunity.
我的观点是，在商业建设的文化中，它与传统世界和现代世界的转换是十分一致的。这种变化是建筑上的，它带来了机遇。
So what was happening 10 years ago was the emergence of cloud as a target, and it was the realization, you know what? The paradons are just different. I'll take securities, an example. Old world, the idea of like four walls and a pipe in a pipe out and a firewall around. It was how we think about security. Cloud world, it's like a mission of walls. It's like, it's a setting on my S3 bucket. Is it in-child or is it outside? This changes my world a little bit.
那么，十年前发生的事情是云成为一个目标，并且人们意识到：你知道吗？范式已经改变了。我们以安全性为例。老的世界中，安全性的想法是四堵墙和一个管道出入口，有个防火墙。这是我们对安全性的看法。而在云的世界里，就像是有许多墙。它就像是我的 S3 存储桶上的设置，它是否在门内或者外面？这会在某种程度上改变我的世界。
And so the definitive conviction around, hey, the right way to do security in cloud is based on brokering identity was the insight that the Armani Mitchell had early on. And they were just convicted around that. And they said, hey, this IP base, which security makes no sense, lets build a product that does identity based. And then the people that were starting to use cloud were like, yeah, these guys are right. That's right. And they started using it.
因此，关于云安全的最终信念是基于代理身份的。这是阿曼尼·米切尔早期获得的洞见。他们深信不疑，认为基于IP的安全不合理。因此，他们开发了一个基于身份的产品。随后，开始使用云服务的人们都认为这是正确的方法，并开始使用这个产品。
The people that were adopting that cloud paradigm first came to the realization that this was the right way to do it. And those were the cloud native companies.
最先采用云计算模式的人意识到这是正确的方法，它们是云原生公司。
It's the twitches of the world. It's the get hubs of the world. It's sort of the early cloud native folks that you would expect to are building companies at that time. And that is where the initial traction came from unquestionably, because we'd been very opinionated about the idea.
这是世界上的抽搐。这是世界上主要的聚集点。它就是那些你期望在那个时候建立公司的早期云原生人士。毫无疑问，这就是最初的动力来源，因为我们对这个想法有着非常明确的观点。
Infrastructure as code is how you do provisioning identities, how you do security. Service name is the way you do networking. Those three principles are the most profound. They're just totally different principles.
基础设施即代码是实现身份验证和实现安全性的一种方式。服务名称是您进行网络连接的方式。这三个原则都非常深刻，并且完全不同。
Once that's sort of got some adoption, you should have worked the edges off inside these big web cloud native companies. And some of them are just absolutely enormous as you can imagine. Like the scale of usage sort of started to shock us. And all of a sudden you're connecting 100,000 machines. And you're like, I wait, I never expect that to happen.
一旦这种技术被广泛采用，你就应该为这些大型云原生公司内部解决问题。其中一些公司规模巨大，可想而知。我们开始感到惊讶的是使用规模的大小。突然间，您连接了100,000台设备。而你会惊讶地想，我从来没有预料到这种情况会发生。
So by the time some of the forward leaning enterprises who we wanted to monetize ultimately started consuming this stuff as well, because they were like, hey, we're building the massive web app that needs to be built on cloud and infrastructure the very earliest of Amazon's customers. They adopted it. And I think that's actually quite repeatable. But it was related to this paradigm shift. You've got to kind of got to look for those. Who are the people that are looking at that new paradigm first? And it's select financial institutions. We would say some of those companies as you mentioned that early doctors have seen the future.
所以当我们想要变现的一些前进的企业最终也开始使用云计算和基础设施时，因为他们在构建需要建立在云和基础设施之上的大型Web应用程序，是亚马逊最早的客户之一，他们采用了这种技术。我认为这是可以重复的。但这与这种范式转变有关。你必须寻找那些最早看到新范式的人。选择金融机构。我们可以说一些早期的先驱者已经看到了未来。
So you look at some of the things we back at Greylock, like Rockset team came out Facebook. Coronavirus for our team came out of Uber. A lot of those teams out of Facebook, Uber, we've said seen the future, right? Or saw them at Docker, seen the future in terms of how you build apps. And they've solved this problem. The other folks haven't yet, but will soon. They're just one step around the corner.
所以你看看我们在Graylock支持的一些项目，像Rockset团队来自Facebook，我们的团队对抗冠状病毒来自Uber。许多来自Facebook、Uber的团队，我们已经看到了未来的趋势，或者在Docker上看到了如何构建应用程序的未来，他们已经解决了这个问题。其他人还没有做到，但很快也会赶上。他们只是领先一步而已。
And pretty soon, the banks, maybe some of the telecosy mentioned, or other companies soon adopt this pretty quickly from containers and microservices to whatever. There's the same customers that started early in cloud, Amazon that early days were a bunch of startups, right? And then now they're standardizing on, no, gov clouds or financial services clouds with likes of Goldman Sachs.
很快，银行、可能是一些提到的电信公司或其他公司会很快从容器和微服务转向其他技术。这与早期开始使用云端的相同客户有关，例如亚马逊，当时它们只是一些创业公司，对吧？现在他们正在向高盛等金融服务云端标准化。
This castle is a cloud project that you've helped me on and you don't have rift on these ideas in the past. We've been tracking the big three, Amazon, Azure, Google, and how they evolved over time. And how oftentimes they copy each other.
这个城堡是你帮助我完成的云项目，过去你没有对这些想法持异议。我们一直在追踪亚马逊、Azure、Google这三大云计算平台的发展，以及它们常常相互模仿的情况。
But increasingly now, in 2022, especially the past two years of the COVID scene, multi-cloud really be a best practice paradigm. And multi-cloud also include maybe private cloud as well. And, you know, Hashee Corp has been, like I said, early of this defining company in this multi-cloud conversation.
越来越多的现在，2022年，尤其是疫情爆发的过去两年，多云真的是最佳实践范式。多云也可能包括私有云。同时，您知道，Hashee公司早在多云交流中就成为了定义性公司。
So it'd be kind of curious. You talked a lot of customers right now. What are you seeing about multi-cloud or cloud trends writ large and is it going to be a multi-cloud world? Is it all going to be Amazon? I think we all, 2012, 2013, everyone thought, oh, yeah, Amazon, I got it. I've seen this pattern before, old world, new world, old world, private data center, VMware, new world, Amazon. Okay, got it.
这会有点好奇。你现在与很多客户交流。你对多云或云趋势有什么看法？未来会是一个多云世界吗？或者一切都将被亚马逊覆盖吗？在2012年和2013年，我们都认为亚马逊会占据主导地位。我们已经看到了这种模式：旧世界，私有数据中心，VMware；新世界，亚马逊。所以我理解了。
And obviously, our bet was that the steady state was multi at the time. And, you know, actually, I've been really bullish on Azure all along. So I think that's a very, very like, doggy culture that's going to pursue the tail that's Amazon and probably pass them at some point, just be a data shared determination. And so I think we made the view that multi was going to be the thing and that was probably, what wouldn't be 10 that would be a few?
显然，我们的赌注是那时的稳态是多样的。而且，实际上，我一直对Azure非常看好。因此，我认为这是一种非常狗一样的文化，会追寻亚马逊的尾巴，最终超越他们，只是一个数据共享的决定。因此，我认为我们认为多样性将是重要的事情，那可能是几个而不是十个。
And that's kind of how it's worked out when you travel around. It's like every single big company is trying to standardize on a couple, but not succeeding. I had a conversation with the CIO couple of weeks ago, it made me laugh. He goes, yeah, I just finished a project of data center consolidation. We went from 18 data centers down to six, like it took us two years to do. And I just sort of smiled. I said, can I guess which ones those are? And he goes, sure, I go, Amazon, Azure, Google, Alibaba, private data center times two. He goes, how do you know that? Because you look like everybody else.
这就是你旅行时的情况，几乎每个大公司都试图使用几个标准，但并非总能成功。几周前我和首席信息官(CIO)聊过，他讲了个笑话。他说，我刚刚完成了一项数据中心合并的项目。我们从18个数据中心缩减到了6个，花了我们两年的时间。我窃笑了一声，问他能否猜出这6个中心是哪些。他说当然可以，我说，亚马逊、Azure、谷歌、阿里巴巴、两个私人数据中心。他问我怎么知道，我说，因为你们看上去和其他人都一样。
You have operations in China. So that's going to be on Alibaba, whether you like it or not. And whether I accidentally do it by design, you're going to use the other ones. He goes, yeah, we just come together with that. So that's what the world looks like. It just does. People are doing strategic deals with maybe two to try and get vendor power bit. Like they're not really succeeding because you have a dev team that wants to do something over here for a very good reason that you end up there.
你在中国有业务。所以，无论你是否喜欢，都要在阿里巴巴上进行交易。即使我无意中这样做，你也将使用其他网站。他说，是的，我们会在一起做这些交易。这就是现实。人们正在与两个公司进行战略交易，以获得更大的供应商能力。但是，他们并没有真正成功，因为你有一个开发团队，为了非常好的原因要在另外一个网站上进行交易。
I actually think if anything, that trend is sort of accelerating, and I've been traveling around for the last quarter. Armand was in Europe, Asia and North America a couple of times this quarter. And what you see is actually, yeah, I know, you know what, some of this stuff needs to run more in private data center because this one's really sensitive. Now that stuff is okay to run an Amazon. And actually this one maybe needs to manage it, run it on an edge pop because it's serving an edge network. And you're like, hold on a second, I thought they were going to be three. Now I'm seeing the big three plus Alibaba, plus even Oracle and some instances, plus some pop. And it just speaks to like, that's the messy reality that we all live in. And I think multi-cloud just becomes the thing.
我个人认为，如果有什么趋势的话，多云环境的发展正在逐渐加速。我这个季度一直在旅行，Armand则前往欧洲、亚洲和北美多次。事实上，这些经历告诉我们，在某些情况下，我们需要将敏感数据运行在私有数据中心中，而有些则可以在亚马逊上运行。甚至有些数据需要在边缘网络上运行。我们会发现，目前的云计算市场份额不仅包括前三名的厂商，还有阿里巴巴、甚至是甲骨文及其他一些小众厂商。这个局面非常混乱，但这是我们面临的现实。而我相信，未来多云环境将成为趋势。
Now, as it relates to investment opportunities, startup opportunities, that's an awesome, right? Think about the problem that your customer has of like, trying to, I don't think about zero trust across those five states, good grief. Okay, well, it turns out that's what we all help them with. So I think it actually creates massive opportunity what initially look like a winner-take-all of game for Amazon and then okay, maybe just for a few of them. Actually, now it looks like there will be a software stack that runs across all of them to solve sort of some of these problems with consistency. And we're certainly seeing that through massively.
现在，就投资机会、创业机会而言，这是个很棒的事情，不是吗？想象一下你的客户所面临的问题，例如在这五个州之间建立零信任，真是令人头痛。好的，实际上，我们可以帮助他们解决这些问题。因此，我认为这实际上创造了巨大的机会，尽管最初看起来是Amazon独占游戏，或者仅仅是为其中的一些人所特有的。实际上，现在看来，会有一种软件堆栈运行在所有这些公司上，以解决一些这些问题，例如保持一致性。我们肯定会通过大规模运作来看到这一点。
This multi-cloud architecture, David, is fear versus greed. What I mean by fear is the fear of lock-in, right? And like the early days are Oracle. And how much is greed saying, hey, I want to take advantage of XYZ service on Google, ABC serves in Azure. Is it just like, hey, you know, for me once, you know, say I'm on you, for me twice, shame on me, I don't want to be locked into the next gen Oracle. I think it's a bit of both.
这种多云架构，David，涉及到恐惧和贪婪。所谓恐惧，是指害怕被束缚，就像当初的甲骨文公司一样。而贪婪则表示想要在Google上利用XYZ服务，在Azure上利用ABC服务。这是一种“一次是巧合，两次就是必然”的想法，我不希望被下一代甲骨文所束缚。我认为这两种想法都有点道理。
And I was talking about customer in Australia, this big bank that's got the majority of their apps on cloud already. They basically said, hey, we're gonna pick Amazon and Azure and you know, some will run on either place. We're just trying to get them to cloud because long-term we think it's cheaper there than we can run it ourselves. And they're okay with the lock-in. But then there's a certain class of applications within their estate. They're like, this one actually needs to be built more like Zoom.
我在谈论澳大利亚的一个客户，这家大银行已经将大部分应用程序都放在云上了。他们基本上说，嘿，我们将选择亚马逊和Azure，有些应用程序可以在两个地方运行。我们只是试图将它们迁移到云端，因为从长远来看，我们认为在云端运行比我们自己运行更便宜。他们对锁定感到满意。但是，在他们的应用程序中有一定类型的应用程序。他们说，这个应用程序实际上需要像Zoom那样构建。
Like the way Zoom is built, if you followed it, it's sort of cloud agnostic. It doesn't use any cloud native services from what I recall. And as a result, it can be moved around to wherever their compute fabric is. And I think people are coming to the grips.
就像Zoom的构建方式一样，如果你跟随它，它几乎就是云无关的。据我回忆，它并没有使用任何云本地服务。因此，它可以移动到他们的计算布局所在的任何地方。我认为人们开始意识到这一点。
Like number one, I'm okay getting locked in because I get a lot of benefit from that. And over, by the way, I can drive down costs. I'll get cheaper over time that I could ever run it, so I'm okay with it. But there are certain things which they're more less saying what about. I think that is a newer trend where people are like, you know what, this payment app that actually is the basis of my whole thing. Maybe that one, no. That's new. That's new.
像第一个，我可以接受被锁定在某个地方，因为我会从中得到很多好处。而且，顺便说一下，我也可以降低成本。随着时间的推移，我可以比运营它更便宜，所以我可以接受。但是，有些事情他们更或者更少地在说什么。我认为这是一个新趋势，人们会说，你知道吗，这个支付应用程式实际上是我的整个事情的基础。也许那个不行。这是新现象。
I think also just that underscores my p-spoint around increasing heterogeneity, not less. Yeah, I used to say in the early days, when I talked to developers and startups like, this is not how people use cloud and not how customers use cloud. In terms of an elastic workload that sprints between clouds, it was to your point, different workloads and different clouds that had different privacy security use cases. And you're okay going all in and one in cloud in one region for scale and cost. You're never bursy between clouds.
我认为这也强调了我关于增加异构性的观点，而不是减少。是的，在早期我和开发者、初创企业谈论时，我会说这不是人们使用云和客户使用云的方式。对于弹性工作负载在云之间跑来跑去，正如你所说，不同的工作负载和不同的云具有不同的隐私安全用例。如果您希望在规模和成本上在一个区域中全力投入云，您就不必在不同云之间来回切换。
But there are some categories of applications that for security or privacy purposes need to be in a private cloud or for some companies like ISVs like Zoom needs to be truly multi-cloud with the same app. But more or less, most customers aren't with that Zoom architecture. They don't have one giant app that is moving around the globe. It's really different apps on different clouds from different purposes.
然而，有些应用程序的安全或隐私需要放在私有云中，或者像 Zoom 这样的 ISV 公司需要在多云环境中使用相同的应用程序。但是大多数客户都不使用 Zoom 这种架构。他们没有一个巨大的应用程序在全球范围内移动。实际上，它们是不同目的的不同云上的不同应用程序。
One insight that did surprise me on my last current trip was for these companies that are pretty far down the path of cloud, they're actually starting to see cost savings year over year. As they move more of their estate into cloud, their bill is actually going down. You're like, that's weird. Well, it's actually not because it actually, there's actually truth to the thesis that the cost of storage of your networking on cloud is gonna be cheaper than you could do on your private data center.
我上次进行云计算方面的调研时得出了一个有趣的发现，即那些已经深入实践云计算的公司，实际上每年节省了不少成本。当他们将更多的资源转移到云计算上时，他们的账单实际上会下降。你可能会觉得这很奇怪。但实际上，云计算存储和网络的成本是低于在私有数据中心上操作的成本的，这就是这个事实的原因。
So they may be charging a margin on it, but if you can get good at optimizing age and over-prevision stuff, don't leave stuff running. This shouldn't be running just operationally. You can massively ratchet down your cloud spend. And I think that's the phase to come of cloud who's mature people. And if you make the bet that is cheaper for them to run that is for you, like it's sort of one direction on. Yeah, we're seeing a category of companies invested a couple around, not necessarily Finals for reducing cloud cost and cloud spending, right?
因此，他们可能会在其上收取一定的利润，但如果您能够擅长优化年龄和过量预测的内容，就不要让这些内容一直运行。不仅仅是在操作上运行，您可以大幅降低云端开销。我认为，这将是云端已经发展成熟的人们的阶段。如果您打赌它们运行的成本比您更便宜，这是单向的，那么您就可以获得更多的优势。是的，我们正在看到一类公司投资于减少云端成本和云端开支，并投资了几个轮次，但并不一定是为了缩减云端成本而进行的投资。
And I think in this economic environment right now, you will see more people focus on reducing cloud costs. It would be basically a question for me out around cloud. How does hash-y compete or work with the big cloud providers, right? On the outside people say, oh, Amazon or Google or Azure would hate hash-y corp, but you guys do a decent job also working with them.
我认为在当前的经济环境下，你会看到更多的人把注意力放在降低云成本上。对于我来说，这基本上是云计算领域的一个问题。哈希公司如何与大型云供应商竞争或合作呢？从外部人们可能会认为，亚马逊、谷歌或Azure会憎恨哈希公司，但你们也做了很好的与它们合作。
So be kind of curious how do you guys thread that needle if you will. So we actually won partner of the year from Azure like through the last four years and partner of the year from Google last year and group Amazon's a bigger partner than any of them. They just don't have that same partner award structure. So the net is our mission in life is actually to drive more workloads to cloud.
我很好奇你们是如何做到这一点的。我们过去四年中获得了 Azure 的年度合作伙伴奖，去年获得了 Google 的年度合作伙伴奖，而与 Amazon 的合作伙伴关系比任何其它合作伙伴都更深入。只是 Amazon 没有同样的合作伙伴奖励结构罢了。因此，我们的使命在于推广更多的工作负载转移到云上。
And I think that comes down to, that's a very, actually very unique position in the market. It's very unlikely snowflake or even a confluent where, hey, Amazon trying to sell you a service for data warehouse and where it pops up service. So like there's a one-to-one thing to kind of sell, they don't try and sell you your provisioning products. They don't try and sell your identity broken, broken products. Those are just the fundamental primitives of their platforms. That's the difference.
我认为这是由于市场上非常独特的位置。这与Snowflake或者Confluent是非常不同的，他们可能会试图通过Amazon来销售数据仓库服务，但是他们不会销售你的配置产品，也不会销售你的身份识别产品，因为这些是他们平台的基础构件。这就是区别所在。
So there is absolutely zero conflict between us. We are like the railroad tracks to cloud for them, but allowing people to have a consistent way to provision allows them to reduce the time to get apps running on Amazon. So we're like the railroad tracks to them. So yeah, we really like it's a very unusual position but it's a very deliberate position. And I think it took us a while to figure out that that was the right model and now we are where we are.
我们之间完全没有任何冲突。对于他们来说，我们就像云端的铁轨，但是让人们拥有一种可靠的供应方式可以让他们减少在亚马逊上运行应用程序的时间。因此，我们对他们来说就像铁路轨道一样。所以是的，我们真的很喜欢这个非常不寻常的位置，但这是一个非常刻意的位置。我想我们花了一段时间才搞清楚这是正确的模式，现在我们就在这里。
We definitely don't compete with them. We're like their biggest enablers. And I think it comes down to like the very practical view that your system of engagement might be running on a Kubernetes platform running on Amazon, but the database that's connected to is probably running in your private data center. So you have a bridging problem for that real app to be built. And we solve that bridging problem. Amazon cares about Amazon, VMware cares about VMware. We pay the bridge between them.
我们绝对不会和他们竞争。我们是他们最大的支持者。我认为这是出于非常实际的考虑，你的系统使用 Kubernetes 平台在亚马逊上运行，但连接的数据库可能在你的私有数据中心中运行。因此你需要解决这个实际应用程序的桥接问题。我们解决了这个桥接问题。亚马逊关注亚马逊，VMware关注VMware，而我们为它们之间的桥梁付费。
I think the bridging thing is interesting, right? Because you don't have to pass one of my favorite quotes is that old Jim Barcell quote, the only two ways to make money in technology is bundling and unbundling. And they go through this phase of bundling everything together as a PC to unbundling between the OS and the apps, bundling everything together in clients server, unbundling again.
我认为桥接技术很有意思，不是吗？因为你不需要经过我最喜欢的一句话是Jim Barcell的名言：“在技术行业中赚钱的唯一两种方式是捆绑和拆分。” 他们通过将所有东西捆绑在一起形成PC，解除操作系统和应用程序之间的捆绑，再将一切捆绑在客户端服务器上，然后再解除捆绑。
And you can argue that from 2008 to 2018, it was a bundling of compute networking storage databases, et cetera, into the cloud and Amazon. In the past four years, we're seeing an unbundlingly services and companies like Snowflake, Confluent, Mongo, DataDog, Chronosphere, Rockset, Docker, HasheeCorp, all either attacking one service like a database or data warehouse or observability or a networking identity, for example.
你可以认为从2008年到2018年，云和亚马逊将计算、网络、存储、数据库等捆绑在一起。而在过去的四年里，我们看到了一些服务和公司在进行拆分，比如Snowflake、Confluent、Mongo、DataDog、Chronosphere、Rockset、Docker和HasheeCorp，他们都在攻击某个服务，比如数据库、数据仓库、可观测性或网络身份等。
And so now we're seeing, I think, in my opinion, an unbundling phase where you see Amazon, Azure, Google, getting unbundled into independent services and obviously something like Hashee that bridges between services, between data centers makes sense when you have an unbundled world. I mean, curious, are you seeing the same thing? And if you do believe in the unbundling, where are you seeing this happening?
所以现在我们看到，在我看来，一个解包阶段正在出现，你会看到亚马逊、Azure、谷歌正在解包成独立的服务，显然像Hashee这样在服务和数据中心之间搭起桥梁的东西，在解包的世界中是有意义的。我的意思是，你是否也观察到这个趋势？如果你相信解包，那么你在哪里看到这种情况正在发生？
I think at 100%, that's what's happening. I think it comes back to the heterogeneity reality for like if you're a big company and you're having to do things on, that are in multiple different places, like you can't use the Pub sub mechanism on Amazon to build one app and the Pub sub mechanism on Azure to build another one, like it's just way to operationally complex.
我认为，现在的情况已经到了百分之百。我认为这归结于异构现实，例如如果你是一家大公司，并且需要在多个不同的地方进行操作，你不能在亚马逊使用Pub sub机制来构建一个应用程序，在Azure上使用Pub sub机制来构建另一个应用程序，这样操作上会变得非常复杂。
So I think as reality is set in that actually, I'm not gonna put on my workload on Amazon, I'm gonna have to do with multiple things and my private data center. Then people start sort of stepping back and saying, like what are actually the software layers that I need in this upper stack? And I've always contended that there are seven, there are seven core ones, there's infrastructure, security, networking, that's the bottom three. Then there's the runtime layer, the best-rescuing layer, and then the database, those are the core six. And then on the right-hand side of that is how you monitor all and that's your APM.
所以我认为随着现实情况的出现，实际上我不会把我的工作负担放在亚马逊上，我将不得不同时处理多种事情和我的私人数据中心。然后人们开始退后一步，并问，实际上我需要上面堆栈中的哪些软件层？我一直认为有七个核心层，有基础设施、安全性、网络，这是底层的三个。然后是运行时层、最佳舵手层，最后是数据库，这是核心的六个。接着右边的是如何监控所有的东西，这就是你的APM。
And I think there are others as well, but I think those are the ones that have been very clearly reestablished. Hey, how do we do provisioning? Well, that's terraformed whether it's on Amazon or Azure. How do I broker identity for that security concept? Well, that's fault. But how do I do monitoring? Well, that's a data dog, right? And so I think that heterogeneity has driven the unbundling reality because the end users just can't deal with that much heterogeneity.
我认为还有其他软件工具，但我想那些已经明确重新建立的是：我们如何进行配置？无论是在亚马逊还是Azure上，都是使用Terraform。我如何为安全概念提供身份验证？那是Fault。但是，监控怎么做？这是使用DataDog对吧？因此，我认为异构性驱动了解耦的现实，因为最终用户无法处理那么多异构性。
Not technically, I just mean operationally. If your job is to establish a zero trust approach to your new fleet of applications, and some running on Amazon, and some running on Azure, like good grief, good luck trying to build them in different ways, you can't, you have to step back, say, what's my common foundation? And then all apps are gonna use that common foundation. And that is essentially a software stack that I run either on Amazon or on Azure. And it's the same stack.
并非技术上的问题，而是操作上的问题。如果您的工作是为您的新应用程序车队建立零信任方法，并且其中一些在亚马逊上运行，另一些在Azure上运行，那么，好吧，好运试图以不同的方式构建它们，您不能这样做，您必须退后一步，说，我的共同基础是什么？然后所有的应用程序都将使用该共同基础。而这本质上是一个软件堆栈，我在亚马逊或Azure上运行。而且是相同的堆栈。
Yeah, I love that seven elements. And clearly that informs a lot of how we organize Castle of the Clouds and how we've been investing from observability like chronosphere, databases like Rockset, elements like Docker and a compute stage. And the one networking in security is one that has to be cross-cloud. So we're involved in a chemical Keto networks that's basically both wide-air networking across clouds and data centers, as well as secure like firewall and Castle of the Cross Workloads, because as you unbundle between the cloud, you need somethings had to be a common and a substrate like security.
是啊，我喜欢这七个元素。显然，这影响了我们如何组织“云之城堡”，以及我们如何从可观测性（如Chronosphere）、数据库（如Rockset）、Docker等元素以及计算阶段进行投资。网络和安全是必须跨云的一个问题。因此，我们参与了化学Keto网络，这基本上是云和数据中心之间的宽带网络，以及像防火墙和“云之城堡”工作负载这样安全的事情，因为随着云之间的拆分，需要一些通用的基础设施，如安全。
And so that's obviously one where super bullish on, as we see this unbundling of the world happened before our eyes. I think what we're also seeing is it was seen that on the front end stack as well. So I think like as the cloud world has gone, as well as gone cloud, the infrastructure stuff has gone to recast.
因此，我们可以看到世界正在我们眼前被分化，这是一个我们非常看好的趋势。同时，我们也看到了前端技术栈的变化。随着云技术的发展，我们也看到了基础设施的重构。
But I also think that same thing is happening at the front end stack, which used to be a very consistent stack. Now you've got a lot more decomposition of those elements. It's kind of going to that same experience. So that's one area that's super interesting.
我认为同样的事情也正在发生在前端技术栈，它曾经是一个非常一致的技术栈。现在它的元素分解更多了，逐渐走向同样的经验。所以这是一个非常有趣的领域。
I think the other one that gets super neat that we see way more than I would expect is edge. And I think edge to some degree, I actually think, I do think about it, and my customers think about it is, there's like your private data center world, and then there's the outside of your private data center world.
我认为另一个变得非常整洁的部分是边缘计算，我们看到的比我想象的要多。我认为边缘计算在某种程度上，我实际上考虑过它，我的客户也考虑过它，就像有你私有数据中心的世界，以及你私有数据中心世界之外的世界。
And that outside of the private data center world, one A is cloud, one B is edge. It turns out the software stack you need to like, imagine a car that needs to connect to a data center. Well, it's the same software stack as you're running on cloud. But I gotta believe there's a lot of other specific things that edge environment, I'm not close enough to know that are also unbundled because there's heterogeneity of edge targets as well. So there's probably lots of interesting things there.
在私人数据中心的世界之外，有云计算和边缘计算两个方向。事实证明，你需要的软件堆栈就像一辆需要连接到数据中心的汽车。嗯，它所需的软件堆栈和你在云端运行的是一样的。但我相信，边缘计算环境中还有许多其他特定的事情，我离太近了无法了解，因为边缘目标的异质性也是存在的。所以那里可能有很多有趣的东西。
Yeah, edge is one we see all of us, you with Kato networks, they built their own network of pops around the globe, kind of like a cloud flare, or just to be close to the customer. But this edge of pushing things out leads to another theme that you know, I have talked about, this kind of either federation of cloud, federation workloads across multiple clouds, multiple the Geos, and you know, how much of that you think is driven by a compliance of data across Geos, and how much do you think is just more multi cloud unbundling?
是的，边缘计算是我们所有人都看到的，你们与Kato网络合作，他们在世界各地构建了自己的网络，有点像云层，或者只是为了接近客户。但这种向外推动的边缘会导致我们讨论另一个主题，即云联邦、跨多个云、多个地理位置的工作负载的联邦，你认为这是由于地理位置上的数据合规性所驱动的多少，还是只是更多的多云解构？
I just think of the practicality of like deploying things where they make sense to be deployed is what's driving it. It's like, yeah. And I think the Alibaba is the best example of it, where like if you're gonna run something in China, you kind of got one choice, and people are generally okay with that. So a lot of multi nationals run stuff on Alibaba, you know, it's probably not the first choice, but it's kind of their only one. And they're okay with that because their consumers are in China, and that's the way to have it work. So I just think it's more practicality. That begs lots of questions around controls on how you have consistency across this totally different environments, disparate environments, but it kind of goes back to the point of this common software stack.
我认为在实际部署时考虑到合理性是驱动它的因素。比如阿里巴巴就是最好的例子。在中国运行某些东西，你只有一个选择，人们一般都可以接受。因此，许多跨国公司都在阿里巴巴上运行，这可能不是他们的首选，但却是他们唯一的选择。由于他们的消费者在中国，所以这是让事情运转的方式。因此，我认为这更多是实用性的考量。这引发了许多关于如何在完全不同的环境中控制如何保持一致的问题，但这又回到了一个共同的软件栈的观点。
It's funny, I actually find myself, obviously I totally geek out on this stuff. I just think it's super intellectual and interesting to watch these markets evolve. So you gotta stop me, but whenever I see an app like Zoom or Slack or Stripe, I can kind of imagine how they're built. It's not that complicated. Where when I see my Uber driver, you know, filling with their app to like, if it gets an extra, you know exactly how those are built. It's something like fault authentic, any identity of that endpoint, something like console, tick-create, then encrypt connection across the internet. And it's something like Terraform that's automating the provisioning of the compute farm to allow it. And then it's some custom app running on top. You're like, okay, cool, like that's just how these things are all built.
有趣的是，我发现自己其实非常着迷于这些东西。我认为它们超级有智力并且观察这些市场的发展非常有趣。所以你得制止我，但是每当我看到诸如Zoom、Slack或Stripe这样的应用时，我就可以想象它们是如何构建的。它并不那么复杂。而当我看到我的Uber司机在他们的应用程序上填写申请，例如如果有额外的，你知道这些应用程序是如何构建的。这些应用程序一般是通过错误身份验证来确保终端的身份，然后使用类似控制台和tick-create的方式进行加密以及互联网连接。接着，使用类似Terraform的自动化流程进行计算机资源的调配以进行运行，最后运行自定义的应用程序。你会说，哦，好吧，这就是这些应用程序的构建方式。
And that level of consistency, I think is what we're all looking at, is like, what is that pattern? Because I think regardless of what the underpinning compute is for that, like that software stack sort of is finding its way to standardization. And that's what's cool for startups is like, what is that market like? What are those pieces that are required? And just know that the cloud vendors are not going to fight you for it. They're like, they want the compute.
我认为，我们大家都在寻找的是一定程度的一致性，就是那种模式是什么。因为我认为不管是什么计算技术作为基础，这个软件堆栈正在寻找标准化的方法。对于创业公司来说，这是非常酷的，你可以了解市场是什么样的，需要哪些组件，同时也要知道云服务提供商不会与你争夺这个市场，他们只追求计算服务。
Well, okay, so that begs me into the next question. I wouldn't be doing my job. I wasn't picking your brain around that startup ecosystem out there. Either startups out there that you think interesting or just spaces or themes in general that you're tracking, that you think are either white spaces for yourself, white space for startups, that as we think about Castles and the Clouds, we're the holes in the Castles walls or the paths or the mode, if you will, that you would suggest to your listeners out there that you think about as their founder.
好的，那么这引导我进入下一个问题。如果我不了解那个创业生态系统，我就不能完成我的工作。你是否了解一些有趣的创业公司或者是一些你正在关注的行业或主题，在这些领域，你认为对自己或创业公司来说是未被开发的空白地带？当我们考虑如何打造“城堡和云彩”时，我们应该成为城堡墙上的漏洞，或者是指导创业者们思考他们应当走的路径或模式吗？
I would think about how profoundly different the paradigm of cloud is relative to the old worlds. And then start looking at the existing markets in the old world and see how they're going to get reconstituted in cloud. I think that's actually the right word. These markets go from old world to new world and they don't look the same. They're just reconstituted in slightly different form. For example, use firewalls for security in the old world, use identity-based control software in the new world. You're going to spend the same amount of money on each in just a different way.
我认为要考虑云的范式与旧世界之间的根本差异，然后开始研究旧世界中现有的市场会如何在云中被重新组成。我认为这其实就是正确的说法。这些市场从旧世界到新世界，它们看起来不一样了。它们只是在稍微不同的形式下被重新组成。例如，在旧世界中使用防火墙来实现安全，而在新世界中使用基于身份的控制软件。你会花同样的钱，但方式不同。
The one that we've been talking about sort of goes down that thought process is privilege access management. And obviously this, we have a product in the open source community around this. But I'll use it as an example because it just underscores how we think about it, which is the idea of privilege access management is actually pretty well-established market.
我们一直在谈论的那个东西，与特权访问管理的想法比较符合。显然，我们在开源社区中有一个关于这方面的产品。但我举这个例子是为了强调我们的思考方式，即特权访问管理的理念实际上是一个相当成熟的市场。
It's the idea of how does an administrator log into a privileged machine? And they do like, you know, such recording what they've done. And there's compliance reasons why you do that. There are vendors in the market that do that very well today in the private data center.
这个想法是关于管理员如何登录到拥有特殊权限的机器上并记录他们的操作。这样做的原因是出于合规性考虑。目前市场上的供应商已经在私有数据中心里做得非常好了。
And that is a billion dollar spend category or probably. Well, as the world goes cloud, like it's just a totally different paradigm, now you've got to give temporary access to a machine that may only be alive for a minute. Right? So, but the problem still exists.
那是一个价值十亿美元的支出类别，或许吧。随着世界朝着云端发展，这就是一个完全不同的范式，现在必须给予机器临时访问权限，而这个机器可能只能存活一分钟。对吧？但问题仍然存在。
So, the old world, new world transition is right there for the taking. It's like, okay, well, architecturally, the old way, which assumes a static IP address target just doesn't translate to the new world, but the spend category has to translate to the new world. So, I'd look for those, you know, for us, boundary is that product because it's very specifically just like an old world, new world transition.
因此，旧世界和新世界的转变就在那里等着我们去抓住。 在建筑方面，旧的方式假定静态IP地址目标，但这种方式不适用于新世界，但是支出类别必须适用于新世界。 因此，我会寻找那些在我们看来，产品就是这种旧世界和新世界的转变。
And everybody in our platform teams that we service that you describe it to goes, please tomorrow. Like, yeah, that's exactly my problem because you understand how different the paradigm is. So, I think that's an example.
我们所为服务的平台团队中每个人都会说，请在明天处理。是的，这正是我的问题，因为你理解这种范式是多么不同。我认为这是一个例子。
Now, boundary for the listeners is this kind of a simple, secure, remote access for your end users, yeah. Yeah, so how do I SSH into that machine over there for one second when that machine only exists for, you know, 30 seconds? So, this idea of old world, new world is how to look at it.
现在，对于听众来说，这是一种简单、安全、远程访问终端用户的边界。当我们需要在一个只存在30秒钟的机器上进行一秒钟的SSH连接时，该怎么办？因此，我们需要从新旧两个世界的角度来看待这个问题。
I think there are lots of those markets, things like the tokenization markets and the private data, things like even the HSM market, some of these like really nerdy, hardcore markets that are, you know, relatively sleepy vendors in those markets because they haven't changed a lot. Well, their world's totally changed in the cloud world. So, I would do that academic exercise.
我认为有很多这样的市场，例如代币化市场、私人数据市场，甚至像HSM市场这样的超级“书呆子”市场。这些市场的供应商相对较少，因为它们并没有发生太大的变化。然而，随着云计算的出现，它们的世界已经完全改变了。因此，我会进行这种学术练习。
（注：HSM指的是硬件安全模块）
And I think you've done that exercise as well. And you can see that Amazon services were basically a copy of that path. We've done that multiple times trying to find founders startups. Oftentimes, I probably get them more wrong than right Dave, but I'm just stopping from trying.
我想你也做过那个练习。你可以看到，亚马逊的服务基本上是那个路径的复制。我们已经多次尝试寻找创始人和创业公司。往往情况是，我做错的比做对的多，但我不想停止尝试。
But no, no, it's, you know, obviously like, when you have a new platform shift like the cloud, first thing happens is people try to use the old tools and the new paradigm, right? And the first question is in the new paradigm, what breaks, right? And so the first thing is you fix the things that break from old tools to new tools. And then, okay, now you're in the new paradigm, what new things can you do, right? So it's a two-step thing.
但是，你知道的，当你有一个类似云计算这样的新平台转换时，第一件事情就是人们尝试在旧工具和新范式下使用它。第一个问题是在新范式下，什么会不能用，对吧？所以第一件事是修复从旧工具到新工具的那些不能用的地方。然后，好的，现在你进入了新的范式，你可以做什么新的东西，对吧？所以这是一个两步的过程。
So there's still a category of things that are broken. And then once you're in the cloud, you can, there's a new category of things you can do definitely that you can in G before, which is I think super fascinating.
还有一些东西是有问题的。一旦你进入云端，就有一种新的事情可以做，这在以前是不可能的，我认为这非常迷人。
We're just being able to see that, I think, because the first generation cloud was, let's move what we had before into the cloud, we broke about the stuff, let's fix it. Now we're seeing, oh, now we're in the cloud, we can build things differently. And so I think stuff you guys build like, boundary or waypoint, etc.
我认为我们现在才能看到这一点，是因为第一代云是将我们之前拥有的东西搬到云端，我们破坏了一些东西，需要修复。现在我们看到了，哦，现在我们在云端，我们可以以不同的方式构建东西。因此，我认为你们建立的像边界或航路点等东西，都非常重要。
And you're changing, now I can build apps differently than I did eight years ago. Yeah, but I think, but I think this is the progression, you're exactly right. And I think consult for me is a perfect example of this.
现在你已经变化了，我现在可以以不同的方式构建应用程序，与我八年前所做的不同。是的，但我认为这是进步，你说得对。我认为对我来说，咨询就是一个完美的例子。
So you look old world, new world. Like if I were to look at all the IDC categories of spend in the current data center, okay, well, which of those need to move to the cloud model, because that's where all the future apps are going to be. You can see a one-for-one mapping, and that's how you get started.
你要考虑新旧世界。比如，如果我要查看当前数据中心的所有分类开支，那么哪些需要转移到云模式，因为未来所有的应用程序都会集中在那里。你可以看到一一对应的关系，这就是你开始的方式。
And then once you've built that, then you go, actually, you know what? From where I'm sitting here, you can do something totally different. A perfect example is what happened with consult. So consult was built around this idea of, hey, the way you do networking in the old world is I've configured Cisco Networking Gear.
建立完成后，你会发现，从我的角度来看，你可以做一些完全不同的事情。一个完美的例子就是咨询的发生。所以，咨询围绕着这个想法建立，嘿，旧世界中的网络配置是我配置思科网络设备。
In the new world, I just created a rule that says, this thing talks to this thing, so I've whenever it appears connected to. And that becomes your DNS. So basically, it just speaks DNS whenever something wants to find another thing, you know, consult is your DNS.
在新的世界里，我创立了一个规则，即规定这个东西与那个东西相互通信，因此无论何时只要它们连接在一起，它们就成为你的DNS。所以基本上，当一些东西想要找到另一个东西时，它只需要说DNS，你的DNS就能回答了。
That's a literally a one-for-one replacement. The evolution became, hmm, what if I wanted to run that across the wider network, and I wanted to have mutual TLS between all those services? Well, that became the service-match market, which people go, well, that service-match thing's pretty obvious.
那实际上是一对一的替换。演化的过程是这样的，假设我想要将这个运行在更广泛的网络上，并且我希望所有这些服务之间具有互相TLS。那么，这就成为了服务匹配市场，人们会说，这个服务匹配的东西相当明显。
Well, it wasn't obvious. It was an evolution of consult. In fact, even Istio is essentially a replica of that exact consult idea that came out a long time after a consult. But that's an example of how you navigate, you cross over one to one, and then you go, hold on a second, I can see something different, and boom, and entirely in your market strategy's created.
嗯，这并不显而易见。它是咨询演变而来的。实际上，即使 Istio 本质上是咨询的复制品，它也是在咨询很久之后才出现的思想。但这就是你如何导航，你跨越一个到另一个，然后你会想，等一下，我看到了不同的东西，然后瞬间就创造了一种全新的市场策略。
You take a full historical right? I Twitter recently, you know, Mosimo, one of our former VMware colleagues, reminded me of conversation with him saying, hey, you know, the market's trying to figure out is VMware the last of the last generation companies, the first of the next generation companies, right?
你对历史有深入了解吗？最近我在Twitter上，你知道的，我们前VMware的同事之一Mosimo提醒我和他的一次对话，他说：“嘿，你知道吗，市场正在努力弄清楚VMware是最后一代公司中的最后一个还是下一代公司中的第一个？”
You know, and I think that was kind of the little bit of state between old world and cloud data centers, VMware and virtualization was the naveler of cloud. And I think, you know, 13, 14 years later, we're now the next generation where this kind of state between how cloud 1.0, or the first active cloud is, to the second active cloud, which could be edge, could be decentralized, could be multiple clouds, that we have generation developers, and customers, and users, and students, don't know anything but cloud, right?
你知道的，我认为这是旧世界与云数据中心之间的一点状态，VMware和虚拟化是云的开拓者。现在，13、14年后，我们是下一代，向第一代云1.0或第一个活跃的云到第二个活跃的云迈进，这可以是边缘、分散或多云。我们有一代开发人员、客户、用户和学生，他们什么都不知道，只知道云，对吧？
And so, you and I racked servers for the first part of our careers, right? And plugged in networking cards, et cetera. And now, because we have a generation born in the cloud natively, what they imagine and what they expect is very different.
所以，我们在职业生涯的初期一起安装服务器，插入网络卡等等，对吗？现在，由于我们的下一代天生在云端中成长，他们所想象的和期望的是截然不同的。
So I'm an investor who's pretty excited, this next turn of the wheel, if you will, would be very different than previous turn. And I think comes like hashier of things that we're investing in are going to be there for the next generation of multi-billion dollar companies.
我是一名激动的投资者，我认为这个轮回会与以前的轮回非常不同。我觉得我们正在投资的一些东西，将会成为下一代数十亿美元公司的核心。
Yeah, I totally agree. The generation of folks, it's just like, they just think of, in fact, I remember going to my first hashier club, I had no idea what we're talking about. I was like, I was genuinely confused, because it's just like a different language. And I was like, I understand this stuff pretty well, but not this stuff.
是的，我非常赞同这种想法。这一代人，他们就像，只考虑，事实上，我还记得第一次去哈希尔俱乐部，我完全不知道我们在谈论什么。我真的很困惑，因为这听起来就像是一种完全不同的语言。虽然我对这些东西非常了解，但对这些东西却不是这样。
The other, so I at your point, the other part I just make, I think it's getting easier for startups, because I think there's a logical buying center for this stuff. And I'll draw the analog to the VMware world, because it's been all I mind a lot. The thing that happens in these infrastructure sensations is it actually requires a slight org check structure change every time it happens.
另一方面，就我所看，另一部分就交给我来做吧。我认为对于创业公司来说，事情变得更容易了，因为我认为这些东西的逻辑采购中心已经建立起来了。我会提到VMware世界，因为我一直很关注这个领域。基础设施变革所带来的结果是，每次发生变革时，实际上都需要进行一定的组织结构变更。
And I think about what happened, pre-VM where you want a more compute, you called up your person at HP and you waited three weeks for another machine, whatever it came. It then claimed the creation of the VI admin as a role. It's, no, no, no, no. You just open a ticket, the VI admin will provision you a virtual machine and close the ticket, because I have a pool here waiting for you. And that became the buyer for so much of the VMware stuff in the end, that singular role, right?
我在回想之前使用VMware的情形，在那个时候，如果你需要更多的计算能力，就要联系你在惠普公司的团队，等待三周时间来获得另一台机器。这种情况下，VI管理员的职责得到了诞生。不过，现在不是了。你只需要打开一个工单，VI管理员就会为你配备虚拟机，然后关闭工单，因为我已经为你准备好了资源池。最终，这一独特的角色成为了VMware产品的主要买家。
Like that is, that is sort of that entry point. And I think there's a parallel here in cloud is the creation of these platform teams or these cloud program offices. That is a central team that goes, hold on a second, y'all are really nearly adopting cloud. Stop. I'm gonna step back, create a common set of, you know, apertures for provisioning, monitoring, whatever it is. And you're all gonna have to use those regardless of whether you're running an Amazon or an Azure or a private data center, because that's the only way we can achieve consistency.
就像那样，那是一种入口点，我认为云计算领域也存在这样的相似之处，就是创建这些平台团队或云计算项目办公室。这是一个中央团队，他们意识到大家正在快速地采用云计算，然后停下来一会儿。我要退一步，创造一组共同的监控、提供和其他设置，无论你是在使用Amazon、Azure还是私人数据中心，你都必须使用这些东西，因为这是我们实现一致性的唯一方式。
And that is what has happened in every cloud company. That's what happened at Hoshy Court. We have a cloud team, or basically a platform team, and then four product teams. Every company we engage with has a platform team and the app teams that they support. And that is your buyer. They're the people that are deeply steeped in this domain of understanding the paradigm that's different. And that's who you seek out if you were a startup. You go and find that group of people who are in the cloud program office, whatever it might be.
这是每家云服务公司都会发生的事情。Hoshy Court云服务公司也有一个云平台团队和四个产品团队。我们公司合作的每个客户都有一个平台团队和他们所支持的应用程序团队。这些平台团队成员深深渗透到了这个理念不同的领域中，他们就是你的买家。如果你是创业公司，你应该去找这些云计算项目办公室的人群。
And they are the ones defining the next 30 years of their infrastructure. I think that's a great place to leave it and the conversation. This new persona, this cloud buyer, this architect, is kind of the, has evolved and become a reality that passed four or five years. And that's persona, you and I, I'd be working with them in the next, you know, five, 10 years or a career.
他们是那些定义未来30年基础设施的人。我认为这是结束本次对话的一个很好的时机。这个新的人设，云服务购买者，这个建筑师，已经在过去的四五年中发展并变成了现实。这个人设，你和我，将在未来的五到十年甚至职业生涯中与他们一起工作。
So David, any last advice to founders executives out there that's starting things in the cloud and either advice on starting companies, running companies, or how to work with you in Hoshy Court? Business building is by definition super fun. These are intellectually fascinating pursuits that are super interesting to pursue, particularly if you really, you're geek out at the role that you play for these biggest companies in the world, as they're doing their things.
David，你对那些在云计算中开始创业的创始人和高管有什么建议，无论是关于创办公司、经营公司，还是关于如何与你在Hoshy Court合作？经营企业从定义上来说就是极其有趣的。这些都是极具智力吸引力的追求，特别是如果你真的对在全球最大的公司中扮演的角色感到着迷时，这些追求是超级有趣的。
So I would embrace the journey. There's lots of opportunity. You know, last I checked, $180 billion will be spent on the big four cloud providers this year. And that number is growing 30 plus percent per year. So there's so much committed budgets out there for you to go and engage with that it is a great time to be engaging with it.
我会积极地迎接这个旅程。机会很多。你知道，据最近的调查显示，今年将有1800亿美元被用于四家大型云供应商。而且这个数字每年增长30%以上。因此，在你接触这个领域的时候，有很多预算可以利用。现在正是与云服务行业互动的最佳时机。
And despite the macro realities and what you hear broadly, you know, the secular tailwind is strong. Well, thank you for your time. And we'll do another podcast on that topic, running and building companies and the leadership aspects that the journey you had in your career.
尽管宏观情况和你所听到的广泛报道不同，但你知道，世俗风向还是挺强劲的。感谢你花时间听我讲话。我们将在另一个播客中讨论这个话题，关于经营和建设公司以及在职业生涯中你所经历的领导层面。
I'm Jerry Chan with GrayLock Partners. Thanks for listening to Gray Matter.
我是GrayLock Partners的Jerry Chan。感谢您收听Gray Matter。
I practiced бо phrasing fluids and physics.
我练习了波的排布和物理学。