February 12, 2025 • 26 mins
This episode dives deep into the ramifications of the DOJ's move to halt the HPE-Juniper merger, questioning whether this action genuinely promotes competition or stifles innovation. We also explore staggering investments in AI from top tech companies and what these might mean for future growth and competition.
• Discussion on the DOJ's lawsuit against the HPE-Juniper merger
• Examination of potential market impacts of the merger
• Insights into AWS's and Google's significant AI investments
• Analysis of market expectations regarding AWS's recent revenue growth
• Concerns surrounding SolarWinds and private equity acquisitions
• Calls to action for listeners to engage with their thoughts on these topics
Purchase Chris and Tim's new book on AWS Cloud Networking: https://www.amazon.com/Certified-Advanced-Networking-Certification-certification/dp/1835080839/
Check out the Fortnightly Cloud Networking News
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fkBWCGwXDUX9OfZ9_MvSVup8tJJzJeqrauaE6VPT2b0/
Visit our website and subscribe: https://www.cables2clouds.com/
Follow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/cables2clouds.com
Follow us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cables2clouds/
Follow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@cables2clouds
Merch Store: https://store.cables2clouds.com/
Join the Discord Study group: https://artofneteng.com/iaatj
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Chris (00:00):
Yeah, dude, not much to add here, but this is the kind
of shit that just pisses me off.
I feel like we're constantlytalking about the same numbers
in a positive light and in anegative light.
And it's like we had onearticle just talking about their
investments in AI and it's like, well, their revenues increased
90 percent year over year in Q4.
And then the next article I'mlike, oh, that sounds pretty
fucking good.
Like 19 percent, like that's.
(00:21):
You know, as a growth company,that's pretty damn good.
And then the next one, I waslike, oh yeah, that was pretty
bad, like we didn't live up toexpectations.
Tim (00:29):
Had a terrible quarter.
It's like fuck man dude LikeJesus Christ.
Hello and welcome to anotherepisode of the Cables to Clouds
(00:49):
podcast fortnightly news.
As always, I'm your host, Tim,and with me, of course, is the
other guy, Chris Miles.
I wouldn't go that far.
We got a book out, so like he'sfamous now.
It's true.
Chris (01:07):
He's a famous author now.
Tim (01:09):
And so he is a.
Yeah, so him and Steve arefamous authors and I'm just kind
of tagging along with the restof them.
All right, let's just jumpright into it here and not stand
on ceremony.
So interesting couple of weeks.
We're not going to covereverything and there's plenty to
cover, but we're not going tocover everything.
So we got an article from SDXCentral.
(01:31):
It's a little bit of an opinionpiece kind of, but basically
the Department of Justice suedto stop the merger from HP and
Juniper Merger.
I guess HP bought Juniper.
It's not really a merger, is it?
We reported this last year.
You know $14 billion, if youremember.
We said how ridiculously cheapthat was, but anyway.
(01:54):
So it was set to close at theend of the year and the
Department of Justice actuallysued to basically block the
acquisition and the reasonstated was there's only three
wireless providers likeenterprise wireless providers on
the market, which is Cisco,juniper and HPE.
So you know Aruba, mist and youknow Aeronet or Meraki,
(02:19):
depending, and the DOJ saysbasically allowing the
acquisition of Juniper by HPEwould take it down to two
vendors and stifle innovation orcompetition rather, or, yeah,
stifle competition.
So this is kind of aninteresting move by the DOJ.
I think it's interestingbecause they don't necessarily
(02:40):
understand the wireless market,which is not really a surprise
understand the wireless market,which is not really a surprise.
Basically, the article isbasically positing like well,
will Cisco benefit from thisblock, from this block, this
suing to block?
And HPE and Juniper havebasically been using the
arguments against this block,saying that you know, actually,
(03:01):
you know, allowing them to mergeactually provides more
competition with Cisco becausethey can merge their tech stacks
, they can get missed in Arubaand whatnot, and they can
(03:26):
actually be a good competitionto Cisco in this market being
acquired by hpe.
It's actually having theopposite effect where the uh,
the w land market is being splitand and cisco's kind of winning
by default.
So, and it's kind of what thewhat this article suggests as
well.
So I, I don't know.
I I have my own opinions.
What do you think, chris?
Do you think that's accurate?
Chris (03:38):
um, not necessarily.
I mean, it's like I think the Ithink the overall kind of
thought here or the findingshere, is saying that you know if
, if this merger goes through,then that means two companies
will own 70 percent of themarket cap for it, for the WLAN
market, right, and it's like Idon't know man, it's like that's
(04:00):
, I don't know what that doesfor innovation necessarily.
I mean, I think there arepeople that are probably in that
bucket now that are either HPEcustomers or probably not Most
likely they're Juniper customersthat might end up going to
something else just because ofthis and they probably chose not
the top two vendors for aspecific reason.
But I don't know, I don't knowif that really kind of does
(04:23):
anything to the competition orthe kind of free market, so to
say, because I mean, even withinthose multiple umbrellas, there
are still several choices ableto be made there, right,
controllers and things like that.
There's Meraki, which is anentirely different solution.
(04:45):
I'll be honest, I haven't beenthat close to it so I don't know
how much integration they'vedone with each other over the
past few years, but I imagineit's probably not a ton.
And then the same on the otherside there's.
You know, hpe bought I mean,they bought Aruba years ago,
right, so that's, and Idefinitely I see a lot of that
implemented today.
But then Juniper, like thewhole, we talked about this back
(05:08):
in what was it?
November or whatever.
Like the reason why this ishappening is because, I mean,
from my perspective, it'sbecause HPE wants Myst right,
they want Myst AI and they wantthat capability and I don't know
if that's incorporated intoAruba.
That doesn't seem likely to me.
It seems like it will be a verylike.
(05:30):
It will be not a frictionlessinstall to get that.
So I don't know, like there's.
I can see the justificationthat there's, you know kind of
two big umbrellas over that 70%,but I think that's going to
sway people too.
Like that might cause people tolike, hey, maybe I should start
looking at you know, ruckus, oryou know some other vendors
that are in this space, right,cause I'm sure the other vendors
(05:53):
that are like, oh, this, uh,that are in the in the wireless
space, they're like hey fuck you, we're here too.
Tim (06:07):
You know they're probably pretty pissed.
But yeah, I don't know.
Yeah, I, I, I, yeah, generallyagree with that.
I mean, 70 of the market isobviously the lion's share, uh,
between you know, those threevendors.
Um, I'm also not 100 convincedthat allowing hpe to acquire
juniper does functionally, youknow, consolidate the market.
Like you said, there's.
There's so many, even withinthe vendors that are out there.
There's so many different typesof of wireless type solutions
that it doesn't even feel likethe same.
(06:28):
I think.
You know, obviously Mist AI wasa huge thing that HPE wanted.
But even then, like you know,aruba hasn't really been
enterprise grade, like it'sreally always been kind of small
medium.
So if HPE wanted to capturemore of the enterprise market,
you know the Juniper acquiringJuniper for Mists had its own
value there.
I don't know about them goingafter it and we talked about
(06:50):
this forever ago, right, I'm notsure how much of the data
center market or firewall marketthey're interested in.
That might have just beencollateral damage, like hey, we
get that too.
But the big one is I'm not surethat allowing this, or rather
blocking this acquisition,fundamentally protects the
market from lack of competition,you know.
Chris (07:13):
Right right.
Tim (07:14):
And Ubiquiti and, like you said, ruckus and some of the
other ones that are out there.
They're 30% of the market andyeah, I don't know, at the end
of the day, I think the DOJ isthinking this is like another
Microsoft type of move, and Idon't think it's that.
I don't think it's anywherenear that cut and dry, you know,
than here.
So the question that thearticle poses, though, basically
(07:36):
is is this a good thing forCisco?
And I would argue that it, kindof by default, it has to be
good for Cisco, like you know.
I mean, like you know, becauseany further consolidation or
cross-pollination or whatnot ofa rival's tech stack has to be
bad.
Because you know Catalyst andMeraki, you know they've been,
(08:01):
like they've changed labels butlike the actual integration is
still extremely poor to nonealmost.
So, yeah, I mean, they stillsell them as completely
different sets of solutions.
Chris (08:11):
Yeah, I don't see how Cisco could come out any worse
in this situation.
Tim (08:15):
Right Because of this right ?
Chris (08:17):
I mean, at the end of the day, then it's still three
separate products and thenthey're competing with Juniper
and HPE, just like they weretoday, right?
Tim (08:33):
So I mean, yeah, it's kind of a obvious default, I think
Yep, absolutely.
So I am curious to see if thiskind of pushback by HP and
Juniper go anywhere.
Or actually, I'll be honest, Idon't even know what the appeals
process I mean.
It says sued, so obviously ithas to go through the courts,
right, ultimately, it has to gothrough the courts and, right
Ultimately, it has to go throughthe courts.
And so they've got to maketheir cases on why it is or is
not a stifling of innovation orantitrust or whatever.
So we'll have to watch this oneand see, because this is not
(08:55):
unusual for big tech companiesto buy each other.
So this is going to happenagain.
Chris (09:00):
So long story short.
This has at least been delayedby somewhere between like four
or six months, at the very least.
Tim (09:06):
I bet, I bet longer than that.
Yeah, I mean given thesituation we're in and the big
money and the big you know, theDOJ is involved.
Actually, I'm curious now Ihave to say I don't know when
this was filed.
Was this filed before or after?
Chris (09:22):
New administration.
Yeah, yeah.
Tim (09:24):
That might be worth.
You know, that might.
That's a good point, right?
So the Biden's DOJ might havefiled this and Trump's DOJ might
be like, no, we don't care, butthat big company is by big
companies.
You know, this is great formake America great again.
So yeah, I was curious.
So let's keep an eye on thisone.
Yeah, we'll see.
Chris (09:44):
All right.
Next up two relatively quickones for CIO Dive.
We won't go too much into thearticle itself, but basically we
have an article, each about AWS, as well as Google, about some
investments into AI capacity.
So AWS is looking to investabout $100 billion for increased
capacity, specifically targetedaround AI workloads, and kind
(10:07):
of the same thing for Googleinvesting $75 billion.
And they're more or lessfollowing suit from what we can
tell here.
Because I think, if you recallback, I think on the 14th of Jan
somewhere around there, wereported that Microsoft was
putting $80 billion into clouddata centers for the purpose of
(10:29):
AI.
So number one in the market wasdoing $100 billion, number two
is doing $80 billion and thenthird is doing $75 billion.
So that's kind of what we seein terms of investment here.
I'm curious.
This just kind of sparkedsomething in my mind and I'm
sure many other people arethinking this like with the
(10:49):
whole rumbling we saw around thedeep seek models and the in the
cost optimization.
There it's.
It's really I'm curious, likecause.
I feel like that what that isbringing to the light is the,
the ability to do more with less, um, or maybe I should say like
the ability that you'd onlyhave to do so, like the
(11:10):
extensive piece to build afoundation.
Llm can happen far less oftenthan we thought it was going to
happen.
Right, and maybe using thosefoundation models to, you know,
build these smaller, you knowmore optimized models, that that
still, you know, kind of reachthe same outcome, or a very
similar outcome.
Right, um it like, is it goodenough?
(11:31):
Uh, kind of thing.
So I'm like, oh man, I don'tknow how much is this is
actually going to come tofruition in the longterm.
Um, based on how that isdisrupted, everything Right.
I mean that's, that's my kind ofwhat's rolling around in my
head.
I don't know about you, tim.
How do you feel?
Tim (11:45):
Yeah, no, that's so I mean these are.
I don't think people appreciatehow colossally large these
numbers are, right, Like 80billion, 75 billion, a hundred
billion billion of the B, andwe're just you're so used to
seeing this number now that it'slike oh, sounds like about how
much you should spend.
It sounds like how much youshould spend for AI, but like I
(12:06):
mean that's an absolute shit tonof money Like and where's the
bomb?
I want to know what does thebill of materials look like for
$100?
Chris (12:14):
billion.
It's all Cisco branded SFPs.
Tim (12:18):
Oh, that explains it.
Oh, they're using single modefiber.
Oh, yeah, okay, that'll do it.
Oh, man, no's, it's insane,right, like so, now, this had to
happen to some degree.
Uh, they've been.
They've been having capacityissues forever, right, and just
as before, even ai even cameinto the data center.
Just, they were having capacityissues.
(12:39):
Now, this is specializedequipment, of course, so it's
not quite the same.
It's not like they're competingwith their ec2 instances or
somebody's EC2 instances forcapacity, but think of the
capacity of the data centersthemselves as well.
Right, we were talking withPeter Jones about how
ridiculously like, how manyracks and racks and racks of
power cooling and gear it takesto build one of these things,
(13:01):
right, I do agree with you thatwhat we're actually going to see
is a splintering away fromlarge language models into like
kind of agent focused, likespecialized models, and that's
probably what it should havebeen.
But you know how it is, likeall technology, you start off
with the generalized thing andthen you, okay, now I know how
that works, now we can, you know, specialize it.
(13:23):
So, and I I'm hopeful as wellas you that, uh, that actually
really does end up being, youknow, less tokens, less power,
water cooling to.
To get to the same, to get togood answers, it should right,
instead of lighting up theentire model every time somebody
asks a question uh, anytimesomeone asks a question.
Rather, um, you know, you'vegot this very specialized model
(13:43):
where you can just light up theparts that matter, and just
physics suggests that thisshould be an easier thing for
everybody to do.
So again, yeah, this reminds meof I don't know why, but all of
a sudden I got reminded of thisold sci-fi book I read forever
ago, called the Forever War.
These two I don't know if youever read it or not, but these
two, like Earth and I forgetsome alien race or something,
(14:05):
was we're locked in this, inthis conflict, but they were so
far apart from each other thatto send troops, basically, it
would take like a thousand yearsfor the troops to arrive, for
them to fight right.
And you know, long story short,basically, at at you know some
point.
I think it was near the end ofthe of the of the novel.
You know, the ships they hadsent, the ships that they had
(14:26):
sent out a thousand years agowere slower than the ships that
got sent out 500 years ago sothe ones that were sent out
afterward were actually arrivingbefore they were because the
tech was so much better rightlike the tech was better and
everything.
So I think I kind of wonder ifit's like, if it's like that,
like we're going to pledge 100billion dollars to grow this ai
infrastructure, but but the techis getting good enough that
(14:46):
maybe we don't need it.
Chris (14:48):
Your take is much cooler in mind because it has a sci-fi
background.
Where my mind went, I was, like, is this kind of just like the
evolution of the data center?
To me it's like for a whilepeople were building out their
own data centers in a facility,something like that.
Now we've kind of got to thepoint where people don't build
out data centers, right like, um, you know, in a facility,
something like that, and youknow, now we've kind of got to
the point where people don'tbuild out data centers.
Maybe they rent a rack and acolo or something like that, or
(15:11):
maybe they just put it all incloud.
Now, you know, we kind ofstarted out this conversation
with like, oh, you need to buildyour own llm, you need to do
all this stuff.
It's almost like people likebefore the, you know, before the
boots were ever on the groundwith that, you know those
marching orders.
Tim (15:26):
We've already skipped it.
We've already skipped it.
Chris (15:29):
So it's fucking.
Yeah, it's wild.
I don't know if that justspeaks to kind of like the
agility of the market or what,but yeah, man, things are
changing on a fucking dime man.
Tim (15:39):
Yeah, and I don't think, and that's why it's so hard to
invest.
That's what I guess.
That's my point right.
Amazon's going to invest $100billion and Google $70 billion.
I don't think they really haveany idea what that money's for,
because the tech is changing soquickly.
What does that even mean?
By the time you've half builtthis thing, you spend half the
money and the whole freakingtechnology's changed and now you
(15:59):
got to do something completelydifferent, probably.
Chris (16:02):
Hopefully all these orders are processed before the
DeepSeek thing, so that theNVIDIA sales reps can surely get
their money right.
Tim (16:11):
Yeah, get their commission checks for the quarter, okay.
So the next one actually isfrom CRN in Australia, and this
one is an article about howAmazon, the parent company I
don't know if parent company iscorrect, but like I don't know,
I don't know, I don't rememberwhat the what the relationship
(16:32):
is anymore between Amazon andAWS.
Is it parent company?
Is it sister, like I don't knowhow they anyway.
So Amazon itself was able tobeat Wall Street estimates.
So, from a quarterly revenueperspective, so they strong real
retail business.
You know, we'll see how longthat lasts, but basically, this
article from CRN points out thatthe cloud computing unit of
(16:55):
Amazon, aws, reported a 19% risein revenue to.
This is ridiculous to $28.79billion, falling short of the
estimates of $28.87 billionaccording to the data in this
article.
So, yeah, so cloud growth lagsis what the title says, and to
(17:18):
me we're working on suchridiculous numbers.
Still, here we are, so manyyears later, this thing is still
growing 19% in a quarter andthey missed their quote-unquote
target.
By what is that?
Is that eight million dollars?
I don't, what's?
0.87?
like 0.79 and 0.87 billion.
Um, you know it's such aridiculous anyway.
(17:38):
Um, targets are, honestly, I'dsay that was a pretty good
target.
Whoever set that targetobviously did, you know, was
pretty pretty spot on with their, with their estimations, I
would think so.
Um, and then the article goeson to point out that, like the
retail sector offset the aws'squote-unquote cloud weakness
which I'm still like scratchingmy head on, like I guess it'd be
(18:00):
, you know, beauty's in the eyeof the beholder, or like math is
right, I don't know whatever.
Um, yeah, so so cloud weakness,cloud growth, lagging at only
19 guys, I'm sorry it's.
Chris (18:13):
We probably should go ahead and repatriate everything
at this point yeah, dude, likenot much to add here, but this
is the kind of shit that justpisses me off.
I feel like we're constantlytalking about the same numbers
in a positive light and then anegative light, and it's like we
had one article just talkingabout their investments in ai
and it's like, well, theirrevenues increased 90 year over
year in q4.
And then the next article I'mlike, oh, that sounds pretty
(18:35):
fucking good.
Like 19, like that's, you know,as a growth company, that's
that's pretty damn good.
And then the next one I waslike, oh, yeah, that, yeah, that
was pretty bad, like we didn'tlive up to expectations.
Tim (18:46):
Had a terrible quarter.
It's like fuck man dude LikeJesus.
Christ.
Yeah, I mean we always try tocover the numbers because they
usually help us understand alittle bit about just the
industry in general, where thecloud industry is going and
whatnot.
But it's tough when you getthese article titles that I
guess they turn on a dime right,depending on what they want to
(19:08):
say.
It's either bad or it's good.
Personally, I'm of the opinionthat 19% growth, like you
pointed out, is pretty fuckingokay.
Like comparatively Soundspretty nice, considering that
AWS is already the 800-poundgorilla in the market.
Chris (19:24):
Exactly that's the thing when they stand today.
19% sounds fucking huge yeah,exactly so.
Tim (19:31):
I mean cisco would love to see some 19 growth.
I'm pretty sure right or pick apick a dominator of the
industry that they're in, andI'm sure they'd love to see
almost 20 growth.
So no big deal here, just kindof a funny, funny article.
But uh, yeah, let's move onsweet, all right.
Chris (19:48):
Um.
So last one we have today,which, I'll be honest, this um,
this obvious, as a excuse me, asa cloud focused podcast, and,
uh, this isn't necessarily aname that we hear a lot in the
cloud world today, but, um, wehave an article from CRN again,
um, about solar winds.
Um, which, if you're familiar,is the observability and IT
(20:10):
management vendor that we'veprobably all used for many years
in the past is being acquiredby a San Francisco-based private
equity firm called Turn RiverCapital.
Um, companies getting acquiredby private equity is usually
kind of, uh, a troublesome thingand kind of sad, but, um, you
(20:33):
know they, they, of course, spinthis as a positive thing.
You know the the, the privateequity firm is going to of
SolarWinds, since, like it wasduring COVID, when they had the
supply chain attack, which wasreally bad.
(20:55):
Albeit, there was like some dudeI'm misremembering here.
Was it Russian backhackers orwas it Chinese?
Tim (21:02):
I can't remember.
I don't remember if it wasRussian or Chinese.
To be honest, yeah.
But it was in their softwareright.
It was a supply chain of one ofthe packages.
So yeah, it was bad.
Chris (21:10):
Yeah.
So um, yeah, I don't know ifthis is kind of the start of the
end for for SolarWinds I hopenot Um, just cause I know
they're.
They're a name that has been umrelative to me for many years
and you know, in terms ofnetwork monitoring and things
like that.
But um, yeah, so um didn'texpect to see this.
It was a 4.4 billion all cashdeal as well, which I thought
(21:35):
that sounded rather low um, justbecause of like how big I
assume they still were in the umon-prem world.
Tim (21:41):
But maybe, maybe that's not the case nowadays, but I don't
know well, I mean all going, allcash usually gets you a
discount so you don't have tolike worry about financing and
stuff like that.
So, but yeah, I mean fourbillion, 4.4 billion.
Yeah, I remember when solarwinds was a juggernaut and I'm
not saying they're not still, Iactually don't know um, I mean,
we used it at the last time Ihad an enterprise job.
(22:02):
We used it um many, many times,being getting a getting a call
at the end of every singlequarter by my SolarWinds rep who
was desperate to sell mesomething.
And then if you ever had themisfortune of downloading a free
trial of a SolarWinds productyou had, if you were unfortunate
enough to supply a real phonenumber, you would basically be
(22:23):
on the list forever.
Chris (22:25):
They were definitely very aggressive to this day.
Tim (22:28):
Yeah, they were very aggressive.
Now, luckily it was a workphone, they were very aggressive
and I don't know.
I mean SolarWinds has beenaround for a while.
Anybody in the network spaceknows SolarWinds, I am I don't
know.
Chris (22:40):
Man, I have yet to find the company, the private equity
firm, the company bought by aprivate equity firm that, like
you know, pes were good ideasand good companies usually go to
die.
Yeah, I mean, I'm looking at.
I'm looking at Turn River'sportfolio as well on their, on
their website, and I'll say, ofof all the companies that I was
(23:00):
seeing here, many of them haveexited at some point.
That doesn't necessarily saythey exited and went on to do
great things, but of all thelogos on here, I recognize one
exited at some point.
That doesn't necessarily saythey exited and went on to do
great things, but of all thelogos on here, I recognize one.
So I don't know if that saysanything about what this means
for SolarWinds.
Or maybe I'm just, you know,ignorant to to this market.
I mean, there's a lot, of, alot of.
(23:20):
You know, like applicationstack specific companies in here
that I have no business knowingwho or what they do, to be
honest with you.
So that could also be a pieceof it.
But yeah, I'm not.
This doesn't leave me feelingwarm and fuzzy about SolarWinds.
I'll say that I mean, yeah.
Tim (23:38):
So the whole thing about private equity right is that
they acquire companies with thegoal of essentially making more
money than they paid for thecompany.
Right, if they destroy acompany but make you know $10
million off of the process, thenthey consider that a success
and they move on to the nextcompany.
(23:58):
They're the trademark ofinshitification, you know.
So generally they will buy acompany, inshitify it as much as
possible as legally possible todo so or raise the prices and
just ride out the wait until allthe customers leave.
You know like they get as muchmoney as they can out of it
until the whole thing's run intothe ground.
I you know.
(24:19):
Prove me, feel free to prove mewrong.
I'm sure there's some PE outthere that didn't destroy the
company that they bought.
I can't think of any at themoment.
I PE out there that didn'tdestroy the company that they
bought?
I can't think of any at themoment.
I know several, but yeah, so Iguess we'll see, time will tell.
On the SolarWinds thing, asalways, yeah, time will tell.
All right, well, I think that'sall the stories we have for
this week.
If we missed anything, ofcourse, please do let us know in
(24:42):
the comments of our YouTubechannel or email, or smoke
signal, I don't know, discord,however, you want to let us know
, that's fine.
We'd love to hear from you.
We always love to hear from you.
Okay, so, on the behalf ofmyself and Mr Miles, we'll go
ahead and close out this episodeof the Capels Clouds News
Podcast, please follow us Buyour book.
Chris (25:04):
Please buy our book.
Tim (25:08):
Oh yeah, we need to do an episode about the book, probably
just to show it off toeverybody and get Steve over
here, probably should.
We'll do that and you guys cansee all the cool stuff we've
been working on for the lastwhat god like almost two years
now.
I don't know how long it's been.
Anyway, it's been a whileAnyway, alright, so look for
that in an upcoming episode.
Chris (25:29):
Until then, everyone, take care and see you later.
Hi everyone, it's Chris andthis has been the Cables to
Clouds podcast.
Thanks for tuning in today.
If you enjoyed our show, pleasesubscribe to us in your
favorite podcatcher, as well assubscribe and turn on
notifications for our YouTubechannel to be notified of all
our new episodes.
Follow us on socials at Cablesto Clouds.
You can also visit our websitefor all of the show notes at
(25:51):
CablesToCloudscom.
Thanks again for listening andsee you next time.
Yeah, dude, not much to add here, but this is the kind
of shit that just pisses me off.
I feel like we're constantlytalking about the same numbers
in a positive light and in anegative light.
And it's like we had onearticle just talking about their
investments in AI and it's like, well, their revenues increased
90 percent year over year in Q4.
And then the next article I'mlike, oh, that sounds pretty
fucking good.
Like 19 percent, like that's.
(00:21):
You know, as a growth company,that's pretty damn good.
And then the next one, I waslike, oh yeah, that was pretty
bad, like we didn't live up toexpectations.
Tim (00:29):
Had a terrible quarter.
It's like fuck man dude LikeJesus Christ.
Hello and welcome to anotherepisode of the Cables to Clouds
(00:49):
podcast fortnightly news.
As always, I'm your host, Tim,and with me, of course, is the
other guy, Chris Miles.
I wouldn't go that far.
We got a book out, so like he'sfamous now.
It's true.
Chris (01:07):
He's a famous author now.
Tim (01:09):
And so he is a.
Yeah, so him and Steve arefamous authors and I'm just kind
of tagging along with the restof them.
All right, let's just jumpright into it here and not stand
on ceremony.
So interesting couple of weeks.
We're not going to covereverything and there's plenty to
cover, but we're not going tocover everything.
So we got an article from SDXCentral.
(01:31):
It's a little bit of an opinionpiece kind of, but basically
the Department of Justice suedto stop the merger from HP and
Juniper Merger.
I guess HP bought Juniper.
It's not really a merger, is it?
We reported this last year.
You know $14 billion, if youremember.
We said how ridiculously cheapthat was, but anyway.
(01:54):
So it was set to close at theend of the year and the
Department of Justice actuallysued to basically block the
acquisition and the reasonstated was there's only three
wireless providers likeenterprise wireless providers on
the market, which is Cisco,juniper and HPE.
So you know Aruba, mist and youknow Aeronet or Meraki,
(02:19):
depending, and the DOJ saysbasically allowing the
acquisition of Juniper by HPEwould take it down to two
vendors and stifle innovation orcompetition rather, or, yeah,
stifle competition.
So this is kind of aninteresting move by the DOJ.
I think it's interestingbecause they don't necessarily
(02:40):
understand the wireless market,which is not really a surprise
understand the wireless market,which is not really a surprise.
Basically, the article isbasically positing like well,
will Cisco benefit from thisblock, from this block, this
suing to block?
And HPE and Juniper havebasically been using the
arguments against this block,saying that you know, actually,
(03:01):
you know, allowing them to mergeactually provides more
competition with Cisco becausethey can merge their tech stacks
, they can get missed in Arubaand whatnot, and they can
(03:26):
actually be a good competitionto Cisco in this market being
acquired by hpe.
It's actually having theopposite effect where the uh,
the w land market is being splitand and cisco's kind of winning
by default.
So, and it's kind of what thewhat this article suggests as
well.
So I, I don't know.
I I have my own opinions.
What do you think, chris?
Do you think that's accurate?
Chris (03:38):
um, not necessarily.
I mean, it's like I think the Ithink the overall kind of
thought here or the findingshere, is saying that you know if
, if this merger goes through,then that means two companies
will own 70 percent of themarket cap for it, for the WLAN
market, right, and it's like Idon't know man, it's like that's
(04:00):
, I don't know what that doesfor innovation necessarily.
I mean, I think there arepeople that are probably in that
bucket now that are either HPEcustomers or probably not Most
likely they're Juniper customersthat might end up going to
something else just because ofthis and they probably chose not
the top two vendors for aspecific reason.
But I don't know, I don't knowif that really kind of does
(04:23):
anything to the competition orthe kind of free market, so to
say, because I mean, even withinthose multiple umbrellas, there
are still several choices ableto be made there, right,
controllers and things like that.
There's Meraki, which is anentirely different solution.
(04:45):
I'll be honest, I haven't beenthat close to it so I don't know
how much integration they'vedone with each other over the
past few years, but I imagineit's probably not a ton.
And then the same on the otherside there's.
You know, hpe bought I mean,they bought Aruba years ago,
right, so that's, and Idefinitely I see a lot of that
implemented today.
But then Juniper, like thewhole, we talked about this back
(05:08):
in what was it?
November or whatever.
Like the reason why this ishappening is because, I mean,
from my perspective, it'sbecause HPE wants Myst right,
they want Myst AI and they wantthat capability and I don't know
if that's incorporated intoAruba.
That doesn't seem likely to me.
It seems like it will be a verylike.
(05:30):
It will be not a frictionlessinstall to get that.
So I don't know, like there's.
I can see the justificationthat there's, you know kind of
two big umbrellas over that 70%,but I think that's going to
sway people too.
Like that might cause people tolike, hey, maybe I should start
looking at you know, ruckus, oryou know some other vendors
that are in this space, right,cause I'm sure the other vendors
(05:53):
that are like, oh, this, uh,that are in the in the wireless
space, they're like hey fuck you, we're here too.
Tim (06:07):
You know they're probably pretty pissed.
But yeah, I don't know.
Yeah, I, I, I, yeah, generallyagree with that.
I mean, 70 of the market isobviously the lion's share, uh,
between you know, those threevendors.
Um, I'm also not 100 convincedthat allowing hpe to acquire
juniper does functionally, youknow, consolidate the market.
Like you said, there's.
There's so many, even withinthe vendors that are out there.
There's so many different typesof of wireless type solutions
that it doesn't even feel likethe same.
(06:28):
I think.
You know, obviously Mist AI wasa huge thing that HPE wanted.
But even then, like you know,aruba hasn't really been
enterprise grade, like it'sreally always been kind of small
medium.
So if HPE wanted to capturemore of the enterprise market,
you know the Juniper acquiringJuniper for Mists had its own
value there.
I don't know about them goingafter it and we talked about
(06:50):
this forever ago, right, I'm notsure how much of the data
center market or firewall marketthey're interested in.
That might have just beencollateral damage, like hey, we
get that too.
But the big one is I'm not surethat allowing this, or rather
blocking this acquisition,fundamentally protects the
market from lack of competition,you know.
Chris (07:13):
Right right.
Tim (07:14):
And Ubiquiti and, like you said, ruckus and some of the
other ones that are out there.
They're 30% of the market andyeah, I don't know, at the end
of the day, I think the DOJ isthinking this is like another
Microsoft type of move, and Idon't think it's that.
I don't think it's anywherenear that cut and dry, you know,
than here.
So the question that thearticle poses, though, basically
(07:36):
is is this a good thing forCisco?
And I would argue that it, kindof by default, it has to be
good for Cisco, like you know.
I mean, like you know, becauseany further consolidation or
cross-pollination or whatnot ofa rival's tech stack has to be
bad.
Because you know Catalyst andMeraki, you know they've been,
(08:01):
like they've changed labels butlike the actual integration is
still extremely poor to nonealmost.
So, yeah, I mean, they stillsell them as completely
different sets of solutions.
Chris (08:11):
Yeah, I don't see how Cisco could come out any worse
in this situation.
Tim (08:15):
Right Because of this right ?
Chris (08:17):
I mean, at the end of the day, then it's still three
separate products and thenthey're competing with Juniper
and HPE, just like they weretoday, right?
Tim (08:33):
So I mean, yeah, it's kind of a obvious default, I think
Yep, absolutely.
So I am curious to see if thiskind of pushback by HP and
Juniper go anywhere.
Or actually, I'll be honest, Idon't even know what the appeals
process I mean.
It says sued, so obviously ithas to go through the courts,
right, ultimately, it has to gothrough the courts and, right
Ultimately, it has to go throughthe courts.
And so they've got to maketheir cases on why it is or is
not a stifling of innovation orantitrust or whatever.
So we'll have to watch this oneand see, because this is not
(08:55):
unusual for big tech companiesto buy each other.
So this is going to happenagain.
Chris (09:00):
So long story short.
This has at least been delayedby somewhere between like four
or six months, at the very least.
Tim (09:06):
I bet, I bet longer than that.
Yeah, I mean given thesituation we're in and the big
money and the big you know, theDOJ is involved.
Actually, I'm curious now Ihave to say I don't know when
this was filed.
Was this filed before or after?
Chris (09:22):
New administration.
Yeah, yeah.
Tim (09:24):
That might be worth.
You know, that might.
That's a good point, right?
So the Biden's DOJ might havefiled this and Trump's DOJ might
be like, no, we don't care, butthat big company is by big
companies.
You know, this is great formake America great again.
So yeah, I was curious.
So let's keep an eye on thisone.
Yeah, we'll see.
Chris (09:44):
All right.
Next up two relatively quickones for CIO Dive.
We won't go too much into thearticle itself, but basically we
have an article, each about AWS, as well as Google, about some
investments into AI capacity.
So AWS is looking to investabout $100 billion for increased
capacity, specifically targetedaround AI workloads, and kind
(10:07):
of the same thing for Googleinvesting $75 billion.
And they're more or lessfollowing suit from what we can
tell here.
Because I think, if you recallback, I think on the 14th of Jan
somewhere around there, wereported that Microsoft was
putting $80 billion into clouddata centers for the purpose of
(10:29):
AI.
So number one in the market wasdoing $100 billion, number two
is doing $80 billion and thenthird is doing $75 billion.
So that's kind of what we seein terms of investment here.
I'm curious.
This just kind of sparkedsomething in my mind and I'm
sure many other people arethinking this like with the
(10:49):
whole rumbling we saw around thedeep seek models and the in the
cost optimization.
There it's.
It's really I'm curious, likecause.
I feel like that what that isbringing to the light is the,
the ability to do more with less, um, or maybe I should say like
the ability that you'd onlyhave to do so, like the
(11:10):
extensive piece to build afoundation.
Llm can happen far less oftenthan we thought it was going to
happen.
Right, and maybe using thosefoundation models to, you know,
build these smaller, you knowmore optimized models, that that
still, you know, kind of reachthe same outcome, or a very
similar outcome.
Right, um it like, is it goodenough?
(11:31):
Uh, kind of thing.
So I'm like, oh man, I don'tknow how much is this is
actually going to come tofruition in the longterm.
Um, based on how that isdisrupted, everything Right.
I mean that's, that's my kind ofwhat's rolling around in my
head.
I don't know about you, tim.
How do you feel?
Tim (11:45):
Yeah, no, that's so I mean these are.
I don't think people appreciatehow colossally large these
numbers are, right, Like 80billion, 75 billion, a hundred
billion billion of the B, andwe're just you're so used to
seeing this number now that it'slike oh, sounds like about how
much you should spend.
It sounds like how much youshould spend for AI, but like I
(12:06):
mean that's an absolute shit tonof money Like and where's the
bomb?
I want to know what does thebill of materials look like for
$100?
Chris (12:14):
billion.
It's all Cisco branded SFPs.
Tim (12:18):
Oh, that explains it.
Oh, they're using single modefiber.
Oh, yeah, okay, that'll do it.
Oh, man, no's, it's insane,right, like so, now, this had to
happen to some degree.
Uh, they've been.
They've been having capacityissues forever, right, and just
as before, even ai even cameinto the data center.
Just, they were having capacityissues.
(12:39):
Now, this is specializedequipment, of course, so it's
not quite the same.
It's not like they're competingwith their ec2 instances or
somebody's EC2 instances forcapacity, but think of the
capacity of the data centersthemselves as well.
Right, we were talking withPeter Jones about how
ridiculously like, how manyracks and racks and racks of
power cooling and gear it takesto build one of these things,
(13:01):
right, I do agree with you thatwhat we're actually going to see
is a splintering away fromlarge language models into like
kind of agent focused, likespecialized models, and that's
probably what it should havebeen.
But you know how it is, likeall technology, you start off
with the generalized thing andthen you, okay, now I know how
that works, now we can, you know, specialize it.
(13:23):
So, and I I'm hopeful as wellas you that, uh, that actually
really does end up being, youknow, less tokens, less power,
water cooling to.
To get to the same, to get togood answers, it should right,
instead of lighting up theentire model every time somebody
asks a question uh, anytimesomeone asks a question.
Rather, um, you know, you'vegot this very specialized model
(13:43):
where you can just light up theparts that matter, and just
physics suggests that thisshould be an easier thing for
everybody to do.
So again, yeah, this reminds meof I don't know why, but all of
a sudden I got reminded of thisold sci-fi book I read forever
ago, called the Forever War.
These two I don't know if youever read it or not, but these
two, like Earth and I forgetsome alien race or something,
(14:05):
was we're locked in this, inthis conflict, but they were so
far apart from each other thatto send troops, basically, it
would take like a thousand yearsfor the troops to arrive, for
them to fight right.
And you know, long story short,basically, at at you know some
point.
I think it was near the end ofthe of the of the novel.
You know, the ships they hadsent, the ships that they had
(14:26):
sent out a thousand years agowere slower than the ships that
got sent out 500 years ago sothe ones that were sent out
afterward were actually arrivingbefore they were because the
tech was so much better rightlike the tech was better and
everything.
So I think I kind of wonder ifit's like, if it's like that,
like we're going to pledge 100billion dollars to grow this ai
infrastructure, but but the techis getting good enough that
(14:46):
maybe we don't need it.
Chris (14:48):
Your take is much cooler in mind because it has a sci-fi
background.
Where my mind went, I was, like, is this kind of just like the
evolution of the data center?
To me it's like for a whilepeople were building out their
own data centers in a facility,something like that.
Now we've kind of got to thepoint where people don't build
out data centers, right like, um, you know, in a facility,
something like that, and youknow, now we've kind of got to
the point where people don'tbuild out data centers.
Maybe they rent a rack and acolo or something like that, or
(15:11):
maybe they just put it all incloud.
Now, you know, we kind ofstarted out this conversation
with like, oh, you need to buildyour own llm, you need to do
all this stuff.
It's almost like people likebefore the, you know, before the
boots were ever on the groundwith that, you know those
marching orders.
Tim (15:26):
We've already skipped it.
We've already skipped it.
Chris (15:29):
So it's fucking.
Yeah, it's wild.
I don't know if that justspeaks to kind of like the
agility of the market or what,but yeah, man, things are
changing on a fucking dime man.
Tim (15:39):
Yeah, and I don't think, and that's why it's so hard to
invest.
That's what I guess.
That's my point right.
Amazon's going to invest $100billion and Google $70 billion.
I don't think they really haveany idea what that money's for,
because the tech is changing soquickly.
What does that even mean?
By the time you've half builtthis thing, you spend half the
money and the whole freakingtechnology's changed and now you
(15:59):
got to do something completelydifferent, probably.
Chris (16:02):
Hopefully all these orders are processed before the
DeepSeek thing, so that theNVIDIA sales reps can surely get
their money right.
Tim (16:11):
Yeah, get their commission checks for the quarter, okay.
So the next one actually isfrom CRN in Australia, and this
one is an article about howAmazon, the parent company I
don't know if parent company iscorrect, but like I don't know,
I don't know, I don't rememberwhat the what the relationship
(16:32):
is anymore between Amazon andAWS.
Is it parent company?
Is it sister, like I don't knowhow they anyway.
So Amazon itself was able tobeat Wall Street estimates.
So, from a quarterly revenueperspective, so they strong real
retail business.
You know, we'll see how longthat lasts, but basically, this
article from CRN points out thatthe cloud computing unit of
(16:55):
Amazon, aws, reported a 19% risein revenue to.
This is ridiculous to $28.79billion, falling short of the
estimates of $28.87 billionaccording to the data in this
article.
So, yeah, so cloud growth lagsis what the title says, and to
(17:18):
me we're working on suchridiculous numbers.
Still, here we are, so manyyears later, this thing is still
growing 19% in a quarter andthey missed their quote-unquote
target.
By what is that?
Is that eight million dollars?
I don't, what's?
0.87?
like 0.79 and 0.87 billion.
Um, you know it's such aridiculous anyway.
(17:38):
Um, targets are, honestly, I'dsay that was a pretty good
target.
Whoever set that targetobviously did, you know, was
pretty pretty spot on with their, with their estimations, I
would think so.
Um, and then the article goeson to point out that, like the
retail sector offset the aws'squote-unquote cloud weakness
which I'm still like scratchingmy head on, like I guess it'd be
(18:00):
, you know, beauty's in the eyeof the beholder, or like math is
right, I don't know whatever.
Um, yeah, so so cloud weakness,cloud growth, lagging at only
19 guys, I'm sorry it's.
Chris (18:13):
We probably should go ahead and repatriate everything
at this point yeah, dude, likenot much to add here, but this
is the kind of shit that justpisses me off.
I feel like we're constantlytalking about the same numbers
in a positive light and then anegative light, and it's like we
had one article just talkingabout their investments in ai
and it's like, well, theirrevenues increased 90 year over
year in q4.
And then the next article I'mlike, oh, that sounds pretty
(18:35):
fucking good.
Like 19, like that's, you know,as a growth company, that's
that's pretty damn good.
And then the next one I waslike, oh, yeah, that, yeah, that
was pretty bad, like we didn'tlive up to expectations.
Tim (18:46):
Had a terrible quarter.
It's like fuck man dude LikeJesus.
Christ.
Yeah, I mean we always try tocover the numbers because they
usually help us understand alittle bit about just the
industry in general, where thecloud industry is going and
whatnot.
But it's tough when you getthese article titles that I
guess they turn on a dime right,depending on what they want to
(19:08):
say.
It's either bad or it's good.
Personally, I'm of the opinionthat 19% growth, like you
pointed out, is pretty fuckingokay.
Like comparatively Soundspretty nice, considering that
AWS is already the 800-poundgorilla in the market.
Chris (19:24):
Exactly that's the thing when they stand today.
19% sounds fucking huge yeah,exactly so.
Tim (19:31):
I mean cisco would love to see some 19 growth.
I'm pretty sure right or pick apick a dominator of the
industry that they're in, andI'm sure they'd love to see
almost 20 growth.
So no big deal here, just kindof a funny, funny article.
But uh, yeah, let's move onsweet, all right.
Chris (19:48):
Um.
So last one we have today,which, I'll be honest, this um,
this obvious, as a excuse me, asa cloud focused podcast, and,
uh, this isn't necessarily aname that we hear a lot in the
cloud world today, but, um, wehave an article from CRN again,
um, about solar winds.
Um, which, if you're familiar,is the observability and IT
(20:10):
management vendor that we'veprobably all used for many years
in the past is being acquiredby a San Francisco-based private
equity firm called Turn RiverCapital.
Um, companies getting acquiredby private equity is usually
kind of, uh, a troublesome thingand kind of sad, but, um, you
(20:33):
know they, they, of course, spinthis as a positive thing.
You know the the, the privateequity firm is going to of
SolarWinds, since, like it wasduring COVID, when they had the
supply chain attack, which wasreally bad.
(20:55):
Albeit, there was like some dudeI'm misremembering here.
Was it Russian backhackers orwas it Chinese?
Tim (21:02):
I can't remember.
I don't remember if it wasRussian or Chinese.
To be honest, yeah.
But it was in their softwareright.
It was a supply chain of one ofthe packages.
So yeah, it was bad.
Chris (21:10):
Yeah.
So um, yeah, I don't know ifthis is kind of the start of the
end for for SolarWinds I hopenot Um, just cause I know
they're.
They're a name that has been umrelative to me for many years
and you know, in terms ofnetwork monitoring and things
like that.
But um, yeah, so um didn'texpect to see this.
It was a 4.4 billion all cashdeal as well, which I thought
(21:35):
that sounded rather low um, justbecause of like how big I
assume they still were in the umon-prem world.
Tim (21:41):
But maybe, maybe that's not the case nowadays, but I don't
know well, I mean all going, allcash usually gets you a
discount so you don't have tolike worry about financing and
stuff like that.
So, but yeah, I mean fourbillion, 4.4 billion.
Yeah, I remember when solarwinds was a juggernaut and I'm
not saying they're not still, Iactually don't know um, I mean,
we used it at the last time Ihad an enterprise job.
(22:02):
We used it um many, many times,being getting a getting a call
at the end of every singlequarter by my SolarWinds rep who
was desperate to sell mesomething.
And then if you ever had themisfortune of downloading a free
trial of a SolarWinds productyou had, if you were unfortunate
enough to supply a real phonenumber, you would basically be
(22:23):
on the list forever.
Chris (22:25):
They were definitely very aggressive to this day.
Tim (22:28):
Yeah, they were very aggressive.
Now, luckily it was a workphone, they were very aggressive
and I don't know.
I mean SolarWinds has beenaround for a while.
Anybody in the network spaceknows SolarWinds, I am I don't
know.
Chris (22:40):
Man, I have yet to find the company, the private equity
firm, the company bought by aprivate equity firm that, like
you know, pes were good ideasand good companies usually go to
die.
Yeah, I mean, I'm looking at.
I'm looking at Turn River'sportfolio as well on their, on
their website, and I'll say, ofof all the companies that I was
(23:00):
seeing here, many of them haveexited at some point.
That doesn't necessarily saythey exited and went on to do
great things, but of all thelogos on here, I recognize one
exited at some point.
That doesn't necessarily saythey exited and went on to do
great things, but of all thelogos on here, I recognize one.
So I don't know if that saysanything about what this means
for SolarWinds.
Or maybe I'm just, you know,ignorant to to this market.
I mean, there's a lot, of, alot of.
(23:20):
You know, like applicationstack specific companies in here
that I have no business knowingwho or what they do, to be
honest with you.
So that could also be a pieceof it.
But yeah, I'm not.
This doesn't leave me feelingwarm and fuzzy about SolarWinds.
I'll say that I mean, yeah.
Tim (23:38):
So the whole thing about private equity right is that
they acquire companies with thegoal of essentially making more
money than they paid for thecompany.
Right, if they destroy acompany but make you know $10
million off of the process, thenthey consider that a success
and they move on to the nextcompany.
(23:58):
They're the trademark ofinshitification, you know.
So generally they will buy acompany, inshitify it as much as
possible as legally possible todo so or raise the prices and
just ride out the wait until allthe customers leave.
You know like they get as muchmoney as they can out of it
until the whole thing's run intothe ground.
I you know.
(24:19):
Prove me, feel free to prove mewrong.
I'm sure there's some PE outthere that didn't destroy the
company that they bought.
I can't think of any at themoment.
I PE out there that didn'tdestroy the company that they
bought?
I can't think of any at themoment.
I know several, but yeah, so Iguess we'll see, time will tell.
On the SolarWinds thing, asalways, yeah, time will tell.
All right, well, I think that'sall the stories we have for
this week.
If we missed anything, ofcourse, please do let us know in
(24:42):
the comments of our YouTubechannel or email, or smoke
signal, I don't know, discord,however, you want to let us know
, that's fine.
We'd love to hear from you.
We always love to hear from you.
Okay, so, on the behalf ofmyself and Mr Miles, we'll go
ahead and close out this episodeof the Capels Clouds News
Podcast, please follow us Buyour book.
Chris (25:04):
Please buy our book.
Tim (25:08):
Oh yeah, we need to do an episode about the book, probably
just to show it off toeverybody and get Steve over
here, probably should.
We'll do that and you guys cansee all the cool stuff we've
been working on for the lastwhat god like almost two years
now.
I don't know how long it's been.
Anyway, it's been a whileAnyway, alright, so look for
that in an upcoming episode.
Chris (25:29):
Until then, everyone, take care and see you later.
Hi everyone, it's Chris andthis has been the Cables to
Clouds podcast.
Thanks for tuning in today.
If you enjoyed our show, pleasesubscribe to us in your
favorite podcatcher, as well assubscribe and turn on
notifications for our YouTubechannel to be notified of all
our new episodes.
Follow us on socials at Cablesto Clouds.
You can also visit our websitefor all of the show notes at
(25:51):
CablesToCloudscom.
Thanks again for listening andsee you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!