The entire "cloud" model is marketing-driven, and has absolutely zero bearing on the reality of real-world secure computing infrastructure ...
Cloud service providers face a "devastating" crunch if they can't convert their incredible success at attracting customers into a viable business, an analyst has said. Even Amazon, whose AWS offering towers over its rivals in terms of revenue, has yet to translate market growth into income, Canalys CEO Steve Brazier said at …
Goddammit Jake, posting from your survivalist stronghold innawoods again.
"Security" against NSA or whatever is not the point at all. It's easier to cloudify than manage the horror of the infrastructure in-house. Sure, it may not fit all use cases (and you seem to say that it must fit all use cases). Welcome to the market.
By your rationnel, there would be no Internet because not secure etc. etc. Instead leased lines would be everywhere.
"Joke Alert" icon because it is the nearest to "Jake Alert"
I made no mention of the NSA (or whatever).
It's NOT easier to "cloudify" (what an 'orrible word!) if you have competent staff. If your staff is incompetent ... well, what can I say? Bad management hires incompetent staff.
And as a side-note, TheInternet (whatever that is!) is NOT secure, by any stretch of the imagination. What we now call "the Internet" was designed as a research network to research networking. It was designed right from the git-go to SHARE data, not to stifle it. And it still does that remarkably well.
And the marketards of the world have latched onto that, alas ...
Your definition of market driven is slightly different to mine. It appears to be a series of niches and the main thrust appears driven more by hype than reality. Can someone somewhere come up with a convincing reason to stream GBs of data to a cloud over a sub 1MBps link to somewhere largely unknown? The alternative is that it can be secured across diverse resources via a local network, under local control, without breaking download or upload limits?
Can someone somewhere come up with a convincing reason to stream GBs of data to a cloud over a sub 1MBps link to somewhere largely unknown?
Exactly not the target market.
For me, the cloud works because I use it to quickly set up and tear down applications for customer projects or for trialing software.
"For me, the cloud works because I use it to quickly set up and tear down applications for customer projects or for trialing software."
I can see the reason you are happy to use the cloud. It's a tool to get the real job done.
But, I do think it important that people who are going to use the "cloud" for their business are made aware that there are potential risks attached to letting someone else process and store their data.
1) Third parties i.e. governments and others may be able to access your data.
2) Your provider may fail.
Use the "cloud" by all means but backup your stuff yourself and make sure that it is current and usable. There's no point making a backup that won't restore. So you will still need someone running the systems in-house, to do otherwise is just asking for trouble.
@RJ 1 market driven in this context refers to business, not IT. What a cloud model does is allow business types to bypass IT. They can do this because the subscription model of cloud computing means that the entry cost can generally be covered by opex.
When you couple this with the prevailing trend to see IT as a cost not an asset, then the model makes sense.
Put another way, it's the pricing model that's proving attractive, not the technology
"Put another way, it's the pricing model that's proving attractive, not the technology"
Precisely. And the article is warning that the current pricing model is not sustainable - as the cloud providers are not making a profit. Which means that the prices will have to go up sooner or later. And then, all that attractive pricing model is gone. So, how much point will be then to have stuff in the cloud? I look forward to companies trying to wrestle their data (and infrastructure, in some cases) out of the cloud and back in-house. Should make for interesting articles on El Reg :-)
There is real reason why business does this. IT department often acts as cost center not a source of innovation. I mean 10 years in business and I have never seen internal IT come up with idea how to run business better, faster or more effectively.
I agree cloud is marketing construction but it gives the power to the business departments to do IT when they like how they like it.
The are some use cases where cloud computing makes sense - something that very rarely goes wrong, so you don't have the staff to fix it when it does (e.g. email), highly specialised applications, or forbusinesses too small to own the infrastructure they need. But, as you say, for the most part it is just buzzword bollockry.
Just because Amazon and their ilk are losing money by selling below cost doesn't mean that all sensible providers are doing the same. There is a fast growing market for local country based Service Providers who offer a good service, at a sensible price point with real, measurable SLAs.
These providers aren't faceless giants, they are medium sized organisations who know their customers, are financially stable and will not disappear when the customer experiences problems. More importantly they aren't faceless robots, you can meet their people and build a strong working relationship.
I could name 20 very good SP's in the UK who offer a far better quality of service than Amazon at an equivalent price - yes, the big shock is that Amazon isn't actually that cheap once you scale your service.
As usual, there's a bunch of idiots in charge of business who jump on this latest bandwagon and force the rest of us to try make it work. When it fails, they get a payoff and head to the next business to wreck, blaming those who attempted to make it work despite knowing it was a white elephant!
There is no value to me as an end user in hiring storage, software or computing.
Why put my data in a place where it can be ransomed or sold without my consent?
The only reason for an end user to use the Cloud is due to the lack of alternatives offered.
Worked for a few small technology companies over the years and I can safely say none of them will ever store company sensitive data online or use any cloud application during the design of any products.
However, they all would happily sell cloud services since it is a license to print money.
This market will implode once a price tag, in real terms, is put to the ultimate customer.
Public Cloud is outsourced IT, period. You are putting your IT in the hands of someone else. They could be idiots that look good on paper with a marketing staff that has no scruples. Your trust is not just in the technology, but the business model and business competence of the outsourcer. Cloud company failures will continue. There is no cloud magic - you have to make money to stay in business.
Sure, if you're a corporation, put your data on the cloud. Make it easier for the privateers running the NSA's spying operation to get hold of your secrets. Put yourself in line for corporate espionage (see Petrobras) and perhaps economic sabotage if the spies don't like you.
Whether you like it or not, cloud in all shapes and forms is here to stay. Public, Private, hybrid. The key point is surely that the use case for the application will determine how / where it should be hosted. If you have a key application with sensitive data, putting this in a public cloud may be career limiting for you.
You also get what you pay for. If you are going to the cheap end of the cloud provider spectrum, having an appropriate contingency plan in place when then go bust would be advisable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019