The cloud conversation is changing
Update: Updated link to Hoff's terminology map and related image to his latest version.
I was privileged to be a part of the Enterprise Cloud Summit that took place at the beginning of Interop in Las Vegas a few weeks ago. The program was excellent, with an all-star list of cloud experts and a surprisingly large number of attendees who were new to cloud computing and trying to get a sense of what it was all about.
What was different from prior cloud-related conferences, however, at least for me, were the types of questions this inquisitive audience was asking. Almost nobody asked around defining cloud computing, but many took advantage of the show to ask panelists and speakers to describe how they could put the cloud to use in their own businesses.
The cloud conversation is moving from "what is it?" to "how would I use it for my business or institution?"
(Credit:
Chris Hoff / Rational Survivability)
I find this very exciting--and, quite frankly, very refreshing. The amount of energy spent on presenting and defending terminology and taxonomy has become a huge time-sink for those trying to advance the cloud discussion. It's not that I mind walking people through the differences between cloud computing and virtualization, but I'd rather focus my efforts on business cases and customer success stories (or even failures).
It's not that the industry has arrived at a common cloud definition--though the NIST definition has some legs, and I'm a huge fan of Chris Hoff's terminology map (pictured here). Rather, the market seems to have come to the conclusion that cloud computing has a lot in common with obscenity--you may not be able to define it, but you'll know it when you see it.
Perhaps the most beneficial aspect of this shift is the fact that we should start seeing some real business cases, use cases, and best-practice discussions appear in the cloud-computing discussion.
Best Buy running on Google App Engine; stories about impressive gains by the venerable New York Times and Animoto when they used Amazon Web Services; and Eli Lilly's tale of redefining research projects: all these serve as examples of cloud's value in the right contexts. We know from these examples that "batch jobs" are great cloud fodder (such as grid computing and image processing), as are applications with unpredictable scale.
We need to see more such examples publicized, however. Where are the financials with their complex models and data mining? Biotech with its constant data processing demand? Manufacturing with its "just in time" supply chain management?
Perhaps the examples will continue to be more of the same, but that's OK to me. Then we know where cloud's strengths and weaknesses are, and we can move the conversation forward from there.
James Urquhart is a seasoned field technologist with almost 20 years of experience in distributed systems development and deployment, focusing on service-oriented architectures, cloud computing, and virtualization. James is currently market manager for the Data Center 3.0 strategy at Cisco Systems, though the opinions expressed here are strictly his own. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
Maybe it's because "windows" are easy to visualize, but "clouds"... well, you can't really touch a cloud. Clouds don't have a defined shape or form. If people want to sell this idea, a name/concept that "normal people" can grasp might help. I mean, a lot of us are still trying to grasp "the web". ;)
Cloud computing in its present form is absolute garbage.
Look at all the hand wringing when Google services go down for a couple of hours. Now I'm a non-paying Google Mail/Calendar/Voice/Maps/whatever user, but I'd really feel like an idiot if I had staked my entire company's IT operations on Google (and paid money).
And I'm a GOOG shareholder.
Let's just drop this cloud computing cr-p. We can revisit it when YouTube doesn't shut down admin functions on production systems during peak usage hours and when Google Mail doesn't go out because they didn't use the two-person rule for some IPv6 administration tasks (again on a production system).
Cloud computing (as it stands today) is completely asinine.
Yet it only took a few short years for IP-based networks to displace the legacy networks and radically overhaul business networking. Why? The scalability, flexibility and added capabilities (IE remote access) it enabled were massive. Productivity gains and cost savings were real. VPN technologies took care of the security issues, and service providers started offering QoS guarantees.
Now, IP networks are the norm, not the exception.
I see cloud computing as merely the next step in the use of Internet technologies for businesses. I think of it this way: for years we've used clouds in the middle of network and system diagrams to represent what happened on the internet (and outside of our view).
Now, more and more of those icons that resided at the local network, local data center or remote office are vanishing into that cloud graphic. Why? Because they are someone else's problem, and as a company, you no longer have to worry about it.
While that may not be ideal for every part of your network or IT ecosystem, overall, I think it's a good thing...
You have done a fine job of arousing some passions here. So, empirestatebuddy, I actually agree with your sentiment--at some point we, as an industry, need to take the concepts of "cloud computing" and a) make them relatable to regular folks and b) make the benefits clearly understandable (i.e. what is it and why do I care?). I think gerrrg's frustration is probably not unique and is an indicator that we, as an industry, still have work to do. That being said, gerrrg, these are very important conversations to be having right now amongst the folks that will ultimately be building out this infrastructure. As an example, I am guessing you are probably not versed in the intricacies of engine, and don't want to have to learn them to buy your car, but I am guessing you are happy the folks who designed and built your care were so versed.
Omar Sultan
Cisco Systems
Voice_Of_Logic and cvaldes1831--I don't think I have seen anyone suggest folks blindly move critical IT functions into cloud infrastructure before verifying things like security and regulatory compliance, service SLAs and the like. Services like Google, AWS, etc are at a certain point in their evolution--it is incumbent on every customer to do their own due diligence and ensure the cloud based services under consideration meet their requirements--many customers currently find them adequate for their needs, or at least a portion of their needs but for many other customers are sitting-out until issues in areas like security, billing, availability are addressed.
Remember when TiVo debuted in 1999? The buzzword back then was convergence. Convergence in the living room! Your TV will be your computer! Your computer will be your TV! This was two years after Microsoft had acquired WebTV and the same year that AOL acquired Netscape, the latter as an attempt to fight Microsoft's WebTV.
Guess what? It's 2009 and convergence still isn't really here, at least in any elegant form that mom and granny could use. Did MSN TV take over the world? How's AOL doing? Yeah, I thought so.
Boxee, Hulu Desktop, Plex, XBMC, even Apple's Front Row and Apple TV don't really provide a great experience for the typical end user. This is still basically beta code (although Boxee claims their stuff is alpha). Maybe another five more years, we'll have something truly useful.
Cloud computing, especially at the enterprise level, is probably a good 8-10 years away from serious consideration. For mainstream technology publications like Cnet, discussing cloud computing now is a waste of column-inches.
It's important for IT architects to continue conversing about these matters in more technical forums and develop the technology, but let's face it: true cloud computing for the masses is years off.
Besides, Google usually has far more to lose by losing your data, than you do. Their business model rests on your data being secure. If it got out that they hadn't kept it safe, who would lose most?
I think it would be a mistake to view "cloud computing" as this large monolithic technology. As James has famously said, cloud computing is an operational model, not a technology. Technologies and services will continue evolve to meet the goals of this operational model.
Omar Sultan
Cisco Systems
- by alexcnovak June 9, 2009 11:17 AM PDT
- As an average user of Google, etc., I view cloud computing as more of doing what we've been doing--just in a different format that allows for scale and efficiencies. I love it.
- Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)