June 25, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Cost of the Cloud
June 27, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Is "cloud" the future? I am not qualified to decide that. My opinion however is based on history.
Lots of things have come to pass that I never thought would work. All of us are flawed in not being able to predict the future. Otherwise we would all be rich, as it would be simple to pick the right stocks.
On the other hand, business is selling the cloud. Previous sales pitches similar to this that failed include outsourcing (most companies now report that outsourcing costs more money than it saves), ASP software (Application Software Provider was the precursor to cloud, and failed miserably), Motorola's Irridium satellite phone, PDAs replacing PCs, cell phone replacing PCs, tablet PCs replacing PCs, network PCs replacing PCs. Now we have tablets (not the same thing as a tablet PC mind you) that actually are being accepted pretty well due to consumers thinking they are cool, but they aren't going to replace PCs either. Google is selling SAS in an attempt to take over for Microsoft. Apple is selling their version of the future, someone else will try next week.
There have been a lot of things that have worked well and sold enough units to be successful. Service companies are obviously doing well in this country since we really don't produce much of anything anymore. Still...
I for one am not a fan of the cloud. I think it is another marketing tool, like Web 2 and a million other things that some salesman decided he could make money on. There are too many risks for me to embrace it. What happens when my pipe to the Internet goes down? I can't control AT&T, but I can go into the data center and reboot a server. What happens when Cloud, LLC goes out of business? Where is my data now? The provider is gone, what recourse do I have? What happens when (not if, WHEN) they are hacked and my data is lost, and I get sued for losing credit card data, PII or PHI? I can control how I configure my network security, I can't control another company.
Will CEOs and CFOs embrace cloud? Yeah, a lot of them don't have the intelligence to understand the implications, and aren't savvy enough to ask the people they pay to know the risks. Will it eventually prove successful? Maybe. Will all of us be standing in line to sue when cloud companies cause us to have to deal with identity theft? Think about that before signing off on some initiative your boss is pressuring you into. Start thinking about how it will feel when you are the one affected by the lack of security at some other company.
Pessimistic view, yeah, I know. Reality tends to do that to you as you age and experience life.
Dave
June 27, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Cloud in and of itself is perfectly fine and dandy and provides great flexibility, resiliency and decreases restore times (as opposed to hardware failure rebuilds or failed software updates).
What it doesnt do is guarantee to make things that much cheaper (varies on a case by case basis obviously), this is a common misconception.
The issue that I see is that people just say "cloud" without really thinking about what it is and the forms it can take.
I too am a little iffy re: the public cloud (for the reasons previously mentioned in another post), however, a private cloud offers a lot of productivity gains for a company. You still need to make an investment in hardware, software and skillsets, but the way in which you use that hardware suddenly becomes a lot more dynamic.
My 2 cents (disjointed sentences supplied free of charge)
June 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm
There are definitely some areas that the cloud makes sense for. Small companies that can't afford large hardware and software outlays can definitely benefit or companies that need a lot of bandwidth. It can be difficult to get sufficient bandwidth to your office. As companies grow it makes sense to bring those servers in house. But there are businesses that absolutely would not exist if not for the cloud.
CEWII
June 27, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Elliott Whitlow (6/27/2011)
There are definitely some areas that the cloud makes sense for. Small companies that can't afford large hardware and software outlays can definitely benefit or companies that need a lot of bandwidth. It can be difficult to get sufficient bandwidth to your office. As companies grow it makes sense to bring those servers in house. But there are businesses that absolutely would not exist if not for the cloud.CEWII
I guess it depends on how you define cloud. Given it is new term, for new sales opportunities, to me it excludes things like hosting your servers somewhere where you still own the servers. A backup data center for example... There are companies today selling cloud as "you allow them to do everything", they own the servers, everything. There is a distinct difference between that and someone providing a web site for you.
As usual, marketing uses terms like cloud or web 2 whenever it serves them to make a sale.
I understand there may be companies that would not exist without what you term the "cloud". Quite possibly your definition is more correct than mine. If so, is it better to exist for a while than not to at all? Probably.
I just don't agree that your definition of cloud fits what marketing is selling. Cloud is about taking existing applications and services you use in house, and allowing someone else to manage them, data and all. At least that is what is being sold as cloud.
Again, it depends on how you define it.
And please don't read this as me being critical of you, not my intention, I am having some difficulty explaining what I am thinking. Probably because I need to stop working and go play some! COD anyone?
Dave
June 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Again, it depends on how you define it.
Exactly right, and that is the problem. Sales people say "Cloud" as some kind of cureall.
"I need to make coffee. To the Cloud!"
Like any kind of IT solution, a GOOD sales person will ask what it is you wish to do, what problem it is you wish to fix, and so on and then see how or even if some form of a "cloud" will be of assistance.
In fact, if the sales person DOESN'T ask you that, if they just go "You will buy this, it will hyperstimulate the synergy of your Single Pane of Glass OSS/BSS application pool.", then tell them to take a hike as they clearly don't care about your business enough to find out anything about it.
Then of course any IT professional worth their salt should do a risk analysis to see if the benefits are there (including as you say: does this company look like they are a stayer).
It's the same discussion as hosted backup solutions in the past and i'm sure it will happen again in the future for some new technology (crystals!)
🙂
June 27, 2011 at 7:45 pm
djackson 22568 (6/27/2011)
Elliott Whitlow (6/27/2011)
There are definitely some areas that the cloud makes sense for. Small companies that can't afford large hardware and software outlays can definitely benefit or companies that need a lot of bandwidth. It can be difficult to get sufficient bandwidth to your office. As companies grow it makes sense to bring those servers in house. But there are businesses that absolutely would not exist if not for the cloud.CEWII
I guess it depends on how you define cloud. Given it is new term, for new sales opportunities, to me it excludes things like hosting your servers somewhere where you still own the servers. A backup data center for example... There are companies today selling cloud as "you allow them to do everything", they own the servers, everything. There is a distinct difference between that and someone providing a web site for you.
As usual, marketing uses terms like cloud or web 2 whenever it serves them to make a sale.
I understand there may be companies that would not exist without what you term the "cloud". Quite possibly your definition is more correct than mine. If so, is it better to exist for a while than not to at all? Probably.
I just don't agree that your definition of cloud fits what marketing is selling. Cloud is about taking existing applications and services you use in house, and allowing someone else to manage them, data and all. At least that is what is being sold as cloud.
Again, it depends on how you define it.
And please don't read this as me being critical of you, not my intention, I am having some difficulty explaining what I am thinking. Probably because I need to stop working and go play some! COD anyone?
I don't see the cloud as me (or my company) owning the hardware, we may or may not own some of the software licenses and it may or may not be used to host internal apps. If I own the servers I consider that CO-LO or co-location. Co-lo also has some benefits especially in relation to bandwidth intensive applications. What I mean by companies that wouldn't otherwise exist really comes down to this, they couldn't afford to drop $10-20K for a few servers and the required licenses for OS and database licenses but could pony up a few hundred $ for a few months to get their venture off the ground, if it failed then so be it but if not then some growth allows them to re-evaluate their model and transition to other offerings, like co-lo or in-house. Not having to buy the hardware helps them out..
CEWII
June 28, 2011 at 6:24 am
Sometime in the late 90's I sat in a meeting with a potential client to whom we were trying to sell software and services. The client kept asking; "Is your code done in .NET?" (at the time, it was not) and I noticed the client kept referring to .NET as though it were a programming language. Finally I asked directly; "Do you know what .NET is?" The client looked me in the eye and said; "No, not really, but I know I need it..." Naturally, this begged the question - If you dont know what something is, how do you know you need it? Answer = Marketing, of course.
As I travel these days and meet with clients and potential clients I am starting to see the same thing happening with the Cloud. Otherwise intelligent highly talented people dont really know what the Cloud is - other than what they've read or seen in marketing materials - and yet they are convinced they "need" it.
Like any new technology, I am still not a believer in the Cloud - maybe in a few years it will be more shaken out, more shaped - but right now I dont think its "there" yet, and we have yet to experience some of the potential disasters with the Cloud that to me, seem inevitable.
What is absolutely frightening though is the dynamic where marketing convinces otherwise smart people that they "need" something. All I can think of is Jim Jones, the maniacal 'preacher' who convinced some 900 people to drink the Kool-Aid and kill themselves.
No, I dont think the Cloud is going to kill anyone - but in an industry like ours, with so many highly hyped technologies that flopped, I sure wish people would take the time to learn whether or not they really "need" something - before simply announcing they need it because a marketing brochure told them they did.
June 28, 2011 at 9:03 am
Elliott Whitlow (6/27/2011)What I mean by companies that wouldn't otherwise exist really comes down to this, they couldn't afford to drop $10-20K for a few servers and the required licenses for OS and database licenses but could pony up a few hundred $ for a few months to get their venture off the ground, if it failed then so be it but if not then some growth allows them to re-evaluate their model and transition to other offerings, like co-lo or in-house. Not having to buy the hardware helps them out..
CEWII
Good example. And quite possibly a good reason to use it, but security and longevity are still critical issues to consider.
Dave
June 28, 2011 at 9:09 am
blandry (6/28/2011)
What is absolutely frightening though is the dynamic where marketing convinces otherwise smart people that they "need" something. All I can think of is Jim Jones, the maniacal 'preacher' who convinced some 900 people to drink the Kool-Aid and kill themselves.No, I dont think the Cloud is going to kill anyone - but in an industry like ours, with so many highly hyped technologies that flopped, I sure wish people would take the time to learn whether or not they really "need" something - before simply announcing they need it because a marketing brochure told them they did.
It could kill someone. Think of the 20s and people jumping to their deaths after losing money in the stock crash. What is lots of middle class people see their lives destroyed when some company doesn't verify the security of their data in the cloud, and thousands have their credit (insert really strong profanity here!) I can see people giving up, the economy is already horrible, things are depressing for lots of people, one more straw could really break people.
Too often business simply dismisses the pain they cause their customers. Life is hard, having entities you have no control over screwing up your life can break people.
Hopefully I am just being overly pessimistic, but history has shown I am not.
Dave
June 28, 2011 at 12:36 pm
djackson 22568 (6/28/2011)
Elliott Whitlow (6/27/2011)What I mean by companies that wouldn't otherwise exist really comes down to this, they couldn't afford to drop $10-20K for a few servers and the required licenses for OS and database licenses but could pony up a few hundred $ for a few months to get their venture off the ground, if it failed then so be it but if not then some growth allows them to re-evaluate their model and transition to other offerings, like co-lo or in-house. Not having to buy the hardware helps them out..
CEWII
Good example. And quite possibly a good reason to use it, but security and longevity are still critical issues to consider.
Absolutely, even with all I have said on the topic I really like having my servers in-house where I can physically see them and MY people are responsible for them. I view all of these options as tools that are appropriate in certain circumstances, there is no panacea and the cloud certainly aint it.
CEWII
June 28, 2011 at 3:07 pm
The "Cloud" is a broad description that ranges from your own virtualised server infrastructure, through virtual servers in someone elses data centre and on to virtualised facilities in the public cloud.
For me the cloud gives a way to make the costs highly visible. If you pay for what you use then you get sensitive to how much stuff is costing you. Just like Steve said.
I also look at the cloud as an overspill area that acts as the tidal volume for your requirements vs the residudal volume you need to give business as usual on a day to day basis.
At present it seems that if you want to smuggle something by the boss you simply describe what you want as being "in the cloud". Once the bills start to come in a dose of reality will creep in.
If you are going to stick loads of data in the cloud then how are you going to get it up into the cloud? Ever tried to FTP a 650Gb file? Its all very well having huge cloud based storage capacity but if you want to move data back and forward you quickly find that external cloud doesn't work.
I think "The Cloud" is a very important development and isn't going to fade away but I do think there is a need to establish what it is good at and what weaknesses it has and tailor its use accordingly.
June 29, 2011 at 7:52 am
David.Poole (6/28/2011)
The "Cloud" is a broad description that ranges from your own virtualised server infrastructure, through virtual servers in someone elses data centre and on to virtualised facilities in the public cloud.
Not sure I agree with this. You are using a sales and marketing definition, which as much as they believe they are gods, it simply isn't true. Al Gore tried to sell the world on having invented the Internet, half the people in the country were too ignorant to stop him from making the claim. As technology experts, we are responsible for calling out those who misrepresent reality in an attempt to market products and increase profit margin.
I saw an article today about how the cloud "reduces your carbon footprint" as proven in the federal government. Sheesh. Let's ignore the fact that carbon laws the administration wants to pass are being used to shift wealth to other countries, the fact is if you move your servers from your building to another one 50 miles away, you still need the same number of servers, you still need to cool them, you still need to power them! One could argue that you could use newer more efficient servers, but that argument is ridiculous because you can do the same thing in your own data center.
I remember when we used to actually require using the scientific method to determine if some claim was true or not, now we just trust that whatever we are being told must be true! Business, government, the media, they would never LIE to us! (Note: My tounge was so far in my cheek for that last statement I think I poked a hole in it)
Dave
June 29, 2011 at 9:33 am
The technical definition of the "cloud" varies as much as possible. It goes from web services, to virtualized infrastructure. It's elastic in some ways, but not as elastic as I'd like and has lots of configuration requirements or limitations.
In some sense, many of us have been living in the cloud for a long time, renting a web server and database from a system someone else manages.
There's no reigning in the hype about what the "cloud" means because people are free to present it as they want without any definition. While the may be, and should be, some truth to the idea that it is more efficient and uses less energy or other resources, your mileage may vary. Widely.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply