Gartner analyst Frank Ridder recently opined that "the number of cloud offering[s] is not at all at a satisfactory level today." He made this assertion after canvassing a number of IT users at two Gartner summits. Unfortunately, he may have missed the message these users were sending him. It's not that we need more cloud …
Not the first time is it !!!
They get every industry wrong, in some cases so off the mark it's incredible that they are still cited as a credible source of analysis.
Want to know how to make your own Magic Quadrant ? http://bit.ly/Vn8mPM
I saw what you did there
Surely it's inevitable that cloud services would be nebulous?
...a sound description of cloud computing marketing
Perhaps somebody should offer the whole business (and Developement) as a service...
Finance and Technology as a service (FATaaS)
Knowledge/Info on Cryptic Keys as a Service (KICKaaS)
Federated User Computing Kit as a Service (FUCKaaS)
Windows Help Information Provision as a Service (WHIPaaS)
Money Pit as a Service
MyaaS - no explanation necessary
I'm so glad cloud computing exists because it gives so many people so much to do. And, yes, including me.
Nicely done, Mr Asay
Completely agreed with your article - that may have been a first ;) Keep them coming!
Thanks a lot,
The Windmill & Tulips Coward
Re: Nicely done, Mr Asay
Yeah, I give it a (very rare) +1 one as well.
I think people may be tuning into the fact that giving away talent in OSS participation is not the way to home ownership or the ability to support a family.
Would be interesting to know what percentage of cloud "offerings" are ACTUALLY cloud systems.. rather than just a web server being marketed as a cloud.
What is the point of Fartner?
Missing the point
The whole point of "the cloud" is to obscure things. It is a marketing ploy not a technical standard so it is always going to be clear as mud.
And all Gartner is doing is pointing out that middle level managers like to be flattered by lots of salesmen and they don't feel that the cloud sector is stroking them enough.
All the other faults aside, it's funny how all the numbers generated by the survey "unround" to fractions with divisors no greater than 9. Providing so many digits in the result that the last ones are practically random is a common way of making the numbers seem significant. Upping that to so many digits that the last ones are clearly not random does however tend to spoil the illusion.