What we learned from Open Cloud Manifestogate

Cloud computing is the first major IT market disruption that has taken place in the world of open source software, "the wisdom of crowds" and the community collaboration revolution of Web 2.0. The concept of the cloud is trying to grow and evolve in an atmosphere in which technologists expect input on the technology they are being asked to rely on, and IT management expects input on the strategies they are being asked to adopt.

Never has that fact been more evident then in the events that have taken place over the last two days. The leaking of the Open Cloud Manifesto is a life lesson in the way that things will never be the same again.

To recap, the buzz began Wednesday night when Microsoft's Steve Martin intentionally leaked the existence of a diatribe created originally by IBM--an Open Cloud Manifesto. The industry proclamation is being supported by a laundry list of cloud service providers and members of the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum. You can read the document on my Overcast co-host's Geva Perry's Thinking Out Cloud blog.

Since that leak, there has been a steady flow of news, retorts and excited commentary. Remember, the manifesto hasn't even been officially announced yet (look for that news to break on Monday morning)--so everything you've read so far has been pretty much who isn't participating and why.

Let me disclose right now that I was not involved in the creation of the document, nor in planning for its release, but I have been fully briefed through my employer, Cisco Systems, and the CCIF and have read the document. I planned to post my thoughts along with the others on Monday morning, and I'll still cover it in some depth at that time. For now, though, I just want to explore what I learned the last two days. (Just a quick reminder that the opinions expressed here are entirely my own, and not my employers.)

1. It's an opinion piece, not a standards proposal.

   As several people have noted, this is a big deal about something that doesn't set anything in stone, either technically or legally.

2. Those who have publicly stated that they won't sign have the most to lose.

   Microsoft and Amazon are the two cloud powerhouses that have publicly declared they will not sign the document at this time. Amazon has a huge existing install base that most other IaaS providers would like a piece of, and Microsoft is trying to hold on to an exceedingly large customer base of its own. Why should either agree to work on top-down standards to threaten that?

3. It's probably a bad idea to release even an industry opinion piece without public commentary.

   IBM, et al, left the door open for Microsoft to label the entire effort as "closed" by trying to rush to a declaration of success without allowing any public community or industry input whatsoever. Big mistake, in my opinion, because open source software has changed the game forever for technical initiatives.

   If the drivers of this initiative had simply announced that the Manifiesto draft was agreed to by the same list of companies, but was open for public commentary before being finalized, the Microsoft post would have looked silly. In fact, there is still time to declare exactly that.

4. It's what follows that is important here.

   The most important quote from the day, for me, is the following from one of the CNET reports:

   That said, Martin said Microsoft would like to be a part of the dialogue. He noted that the company was subsequently invited to a meeting of some cloud-computing participants to take place on Monday as part of a cloud-computing conference.

   "We have accepted that invitation and we will participate," Martin said. "If there is meaningful dialogue, it is something we will want to play a role in. Hopefully we will use that as a chance to restart that conversation."

   The productiveness of that meeting (and, I'm guessing, the civility) will say a lot about what will come of the manifesto. Its great that a large number of companies have (apparently) signed on to express their commitment to open cloud environments, but the actual actions initiated at that meeting--including organization, financial/people commitment, etc.--will go a long way to establishing what they can accomplished.

That being said, let me also note that I'm not convinced that a top-down formal standards approach will do anything other than repeat the mixed success of the WS-* efforts to date. Amazon's EC2 and S3 APIs are already defacto standards (see EUCALYPTUS and Sun's Cloud Compute Service), and Sun and GoGrid have also opened up their APIs in the hope they take some or all of the management standards pie. Already, businesses are out there figuring out some basic interoperability between cloud providers that matter to them: RightScale and their competitors are attacking server image portability in interesting ways, and Salesforce.com has full integration from Force.com to Amazon AWS and Facebook.

So, in the end, this declaration is a good thing in that it shows that the industry has learned that open is good. However, in the end it might not do much more than that, and we might have all gotten into a tizzy over yet another expression of what could be in cloud computing.

[samjohnston]

2. Those that have publicly stated that they won't sign have the most to lose.

Conversely, those pushing to have it signed (so far: IBM) have the most to gain. WSJ have just <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/03/28/a-cloud-manifesto-controversy/">revealed</a> that none of Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft or Salesforce will be participating which, so far as I am concern, constitutes a stillborn.

Assuming anybody owns up to the mess on Monday (which is not guaranteed so far as I can tell) I'm fully expecting it to be a bunch of cloud wannabes and small fry. Holding the "open" gun to the heads of the existing players is like calling Internet censorship opponents child pornographers.

Sam

[jamesurquhart]

Sam,

"Conversely, those pushing to have it signed (so far: IBM) have the most to gain."

I can't argue with that, though I would hasten to point out that the Internet was formed by a bunch of "wannabes and small fry" content providers with much to gain compared to AOL and Prodigy. Being the first and the biggest but remaining closed won't win here. I think Amazon, Google and Microsoft get that to some extent. Salesforce.com certainly does.

However, even partnerships won't beat a free, open market in the long term. And, yes, I freely admit that we are discussing long term here. Amazon, Google, et al, have little incentive to join in the short term.

[samjohnston]

James,

Well IBM certainly doesn't fall into the "small fry" category and "wannabe"'s not really accurate either... though they are clearly keen to get their name associated with cloud computing (see recent press activity). If Microsoft's maneuver was a political stunt (and only they will ever know that) then it was certainly effective - you'd have to be living under a rock not to associate them with cloud after this week and meanwhile everyone else withing 100 miles of the "Open Cloud Manifesto" is busy backing out and/or licking their wounds.

Anyway back in 2006/7 I architected a system around Google Apps that beat both IBM and Microsoft to a 35k user deal in Europe (IBM was the incumbent) so it's high time they got on board - I've been anticipating something like this for a while.

Sam

[samcharrington]

> If the drivers of this initiative had simply announced that the Manifiesto draft was agreed to by the
> same list of companies, but was open for public commentary before being finalized, the Microsoft post
> would have looked silly. In fact, there is still time to declare exactly that.

I think this has been the idea from the beginning but a "secret cabal" makes a much better headline. It's a first step and will continue to evolve as such. If a bunch of companies and individuals want to say "we support this first step by signing on to the draft Manifesto, all the better.

The open source analogy is tossed around a lot, but it goes both ways. As I mentioned in my "ManifestoGate" post (<a href="http://www.appistry.com/blogs/sam/you-had-me-at-open--the-open-cloud-manifesto-manifesto">You had me at "Open": An Open Cloud Manifesto Manifesto</a>):

<quote>
To me, it's equivalent to how the open source community has successfully worked for years: someone gets an itch, scratches it themselves (or with the help of a few others), and then turns it over to the community. That's what's happening here.
</quote>

[botchagalupe]

"It's an opinion piece, not a standards proposal."

I tend to disagree. On slide 5 of the manifesto it lists 6 "Principles of an Open Cloud" and Item 2 specifically states

"Cloud providers must not use their market position to lock customers into their particular platforms and limiting their choice of providers."

In my opinion, if you sign on to this manifesto you are putting your credibility on the line. You either a.) signed on the the document because you truly believe this ti be true or b.) you singed on to jump on board for the marketing hype. Only time will tell; however, some of the names I have seen on the list I believe will definitely fall into the latter.

john
johnmwillis.com

[tm_anon]

Why would it put their credibility on the line if they signed a document stating they won't trap their customers? If I was choosing between two companies, both of the same quality at the moment, one area which would help me decide which company to go with is my freedom to leave as a customer if that company ever disappointed me or if my needs simply changed.

The line you quoted just shows that the companies which have signed the document already have this in mind. A customer should only be a customer for as long as he desires to be, not because he has no options.

[gggg sssss]

lets see - the two largest players reject the concept. They have already developped a viable standard. A bunch of whiners now wants to overturn it in some socialistic manner? ROTFMAO

[tm_anon]

Try reading the Manifesto. It says nothing about overturning standards and it says nothing which in any way should stop innovation. Actually, it just tries to give consumers choice by making it easy to switch between companies, go to the one that works best for you, not to the same one a thousand other people use just because the document you create won't work on their infrastructure.

[oahuken]

I've been reading the "information" about what is being referred to as Cloud computing and wonder why it's not just called "Utility Companyesque Computing/communication Services". GOOGLE and APPLE have the best handles on it with the hand-held, computing/communications solution sets they are building. Now some of the not so big are going, "Hey, uh, wait a minute. Don't you think we should give this a name - Cloud computing - yeah, that's the ticket. And slow down, (so we can catch up) lets make some 'principles' that we can all 'agree' to (and while we talk we can catch up)"

I say, let the market decide. Blu-ray got picked by market forces as did VHS over Betamax.

My handheld / bluetooth / SuperWIFI / cisco switched device to connect me to apps and storage and communication and entertainment isn't going to wait for the manifesto boys to get it together. Look out Ma-Bell, and Cable Co. and Old timer software providers, here comes the antigravity "i don't need no tracks" train, and it doesn't look like a cloud.

[sodablue]

One thing I've learned over 30 years in the industry.

Never trust anything IBM is trying to sell you.

[tarry_singh]

I'd prefer to wait until Monday (tomorrow thus) before I lose my 0.002 cents.

[eudefender]

Yes, communication wise it shows that Microsoft is in a silly mode. That is a good sign for the transformation process.