Comments on: Amazon, Microsoft reject 'Open Cloud Manifesto'

Cloud-computing providers are set to officially issue a "manifesto" calling for open standards in the emerging field. Two of the biggest names, though, aren't signing on.

[dumbspammers]

Both Microsoft and Amazon have rejected standards and attempted to ram their own proprietary crap down the throats of the rest of the world for their entire histories. This move does not surprise me in the slightest.

[flickrz]

Why is it always that the losers in any technology war come up with 'open ness' and 'open source' etc? It has become more of a weapon of choice for sore losers now a days. If a company has 85-90% marketshare; it's propriety standards are defacto standards not of those remaining 100 companies who then join a society and come up with a standard way that serves only rest of the 15-20%.

[Renegade Knight]

@flickrz

Real cross platform and cross company standards allow you to keep and use your own data and IP. Being locked into one format that's incompatible with another is no way to run your own business. It's hurting my own business in that something that was supposed to make our job easier is being outdated and outmoded and I'm using the same platform. When we lost our hard work due to incompatablity that's time and money being thrown down the drain.

The issue is real even if you don't agree.

[tm_anon]

@flickrz

Did you even read the Manifesto? There's nothing in it to object to unless Microsoft and Amazon are planning on breaking standards and ensuring lock-in to proprietary tech.

In other words, unless MS and Amazon plan on punishing you both for using their tech and for leaving their tech, there's no reason to reject the Manifesto.

It states quite clearly that innovation is welcome. In fact, everything it says is exactly what has been needed in the software world for a very long time.

[ausernamenoonehaschosen]

I completely agree with you dumbspammers, if only people would learn why standards are necessary.

[pentest]

flikrz,

Without open standards there would be no internet and no web.

[flickrz]

No, I am not against open standards etc. Of course it makes lives much easier when you want to port your own data from one service provider to another. The real problem is that it is being used by 'others' (IBM in this case) to defame or attack other providers. I read microsoft's response in which they mentioned that the manifesto was provided to them to sign with only 48 hours before it was released. Now, IBM will claim high ground that it is all about openness where as Microsoft and Amazon aren't. The fact is; they should all have worked together from the beginning rather than IBM working with companies that were anti-Microsoft or anti-Amazon and claiming to have come up with manifesto. And, if I am Amazon; I'd be irked by that too. Instead of being pragmatic and give credit where it is due; people generally pile up on the company that has been more successful. Yes, everybody is there to make profits and have their own bargaining chips but, just because 10 companies that has combined market share of 10% come up with a standard way to interop doesn't make it standard across the board. Remaining 2 companies that may have 90% market share can't be ignored because they are successful. I know nobody still dominates cloud but, there would eventually be one, two or three major players who will dominate. IBM is trying to create a level playing field only because they don't dominate cloud. Look at mainframe market and how IBM is protecting its turf by buying up any start ups that came up with virtualization technology that may one day challenge its dominance. It is always this war between successful companies and not so successful companies.

[tm_anon]

@flickrz

"Microsoft, for its part, said there were some things it agreed with in the manifesto, but others that were either too vague or did not reflect its interests."

It's that last section of the quote that is the entire reason I'm against MS in this one. Amazon didn't flat out refuse the idea of it, but MS did.

Though it was stated that they didn't have enough time to review the document, they still have objection to it and, from reading the document, any objections MS has can only point to a desire for customer lock-in. It's how they operate.

The document won't stop those 2,3 or 4 major players from rising to the top. In fact, all the document will do is ensure that the 2,3 or 4 major players that do rise do so by being better than the rest, not by bullying and using underhanded tactics. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had a completely free choice between different software vendors because standards were enforced. I can promise there would be a lot less crap around and a lot more innovation replacing it.

[RighteousSoutherner]

@Fkickers

It's not so much about the content, it's the sneaky way that IBM others have gone about writing the Cloud Manifesto. Actions speak louder than words, dude.

[dustin_amrhein]

I think 'rejected' mis-characterizes at least Amazon's stance and possibly both companies' stances. Microsoft for its part did say they accepted some components and not others (like any standards document), and Amazon said it would continue to monitor the document. At some point in the cloud computing movement, open standards will become important. That may not be now, but it is silly to think that both Amazon and Microsoft will not have a hand in defining such standards.

[tm_anon]

What I'm afraid of is that Amazon and Microsoft will define the "standards" to the point where entry costs are astronomical.

[ncalishome]

I think 'rejected' the asinine way this was introduced would be most accurate. There is nothing not-open about Amazon's web services now. When you create a machine you can start with a pre-configured image (Windows, Linux, etc) or build your own and upload it. It's like a regular server, you have root access and can just SSH right in. Get it ready to go and you can spawn as many instances as you like through web services based on REST. And it's extremely well documented, with tons of code you can download to get going. On top of that you have software, the software you want. If that's not open I don't know what is. If Amazon rejected anything they rejected it based on the pathetic performance put forth by those promoting this. It's like this group does not understand the playing field as it exists-- perhaps they should have invited the grown ups to the meeting before laying it out and saying "sign it!".

[pentest]

It doesn't matter how well documented it is or how much code is available. It is under control by a greedy corporation who will have no problems breaking it to lock people in tighter. Just like the .net nonsense.

[uhpl508]

Much like the hullabaloo about the standards for OpenOffice and MS Office XML based documents, these kinds of things tend to be less about bringing the industry together around something useful and more about fabricating a "standard" which allows companies that implement the "standard" to say that their solution is standards based, which some companies and governments will require when picking a solution. So if IBM wants to say that they implement a "standard" and Microsoft doesn't because they have an official document, good for them, but its not a technology issue, its politics.

[tm_anon]

From your comment, you didn't read the manifesto. The entire thing was written to say that standards needed to be implemented which would allow for greater interoperability, that standards which are already in place should be utilized and that any new standards should first be agreed upon before being implemented.

In other words, MS and Amazon were given the chance to join the group which wants standards and standards compliance from all. It's a restriction on everyone and a freedom for everyone as well. They just gave up their chance to have a voice as to what standards get used or created.

[massfat]

Yes they were given the chance to join the group, but they were denied participation in the creation of it. This manifesto is clearly not open and needs to be destroyed under anticompetitive law because the supporters are merely banding together to force a standard on the industry so that they can gain market share and an advantage. This is why all the manufacturers of a single type of product aren't allowed to sign into one enormous price for their products.

[eudefender]

Oil sheiks reject switch to solar technology. North Korea proposes alternative definition of democracy. Microsoft proposed its own definition of open standards, openness beeing expressed by the number of disclosed patents on the standard. Amazon and Microsoft vs. open cloud interoperability.

[zelrik]

I have just read the manifesto, anyone who has a clue about moral would accept it. Microsoft is damn evil...

[ncalishome]

A company as big as Microsoft with the investment (many, many milllions I'm sure) they already have in their own (pre-manifesto) initiative (Azure) is not going to sign anything like this given 2 days to do so. If IBM were in Microsoft's position with the infrastructure built and the software side on the way out the door I doubt they would sign right now either.

"In one move, Microsoft has provided more visibility to our cloud interoperability effort than all our previous efforts combined," Cohen wrote."

I think this was their intention all along.

[codynews]

oh puke!!! These attention ****** that wrote this "manifesto" need to get over themselves. Seriously.

I think I'm going to write something about how I think MS and Amazon should operate, then give them 48 hours to agree to it, and if they don't I'm going to cry foul. Hopefully cnet will pick up my grievance!

Cody

[ncalishome]

It's more like IBM said "OK, we're more than a few years late to the cloud computing party. Let's put together a document that makes it easy for us to scrape off Amazon's and Microsoft's customers in the spirit of openness". I can't blame any company for not signing this in it's current form. I'm sure Microsoft has Azure ready to slip right into the Visual Studio ecosystem and the high-level (from 100k feet) bullets in this doc are something you'd be looking at when you start designing a system like this... And I use Amazon's cloud, great documentation, great open-source libraries, just great. The discussion IBM is trying to start now with this failed manifesto is silly considering where the players that are in it currently are in project life cycle.

[gggg sssss]

If MS does not support it, and it does not support MS, then it is just a cloud of vapor. Not worth teh paper it is written on. Utter rubbish.

[pentest]

MS doesn't support any standard unless forced to(like TCP/IP), their stamp of approval is not with any meaning or value.

[gggg sssss]

@pentest If MS does not suipport it it will not succeed.Period

[tm_anon]

If MS doesn't support open standards, someone else will. They don't control the market for Cloud Computing and, without using the brand name, they wouldn't even be a player.

Right now, Amazon is top dog. Google can jump in and be right at the top as well. There are many other, better companies than MS who will support standards.

[t8]

Google is a bigger player on the Web than Microsoft.
If Microsoft don't support it Google might.

[ncalishome]

I don't know if any of you have used Amazon's cloud services, but I've used EC2 and S3 pretty extensively and I can see why they would not sign this document as is, especially given the time they were given to look over and make that decision.

Amazon's web services around managing your assets in the cloud is very mature, and works very well. I bet Microsoft is in a similar position with it's Azure product they're launching. While a business just looking at jumping into this space would probably be eager to sign, I would not expect a company like Amazon (who's an early pioneer bringing this to consumers) to be so welcoming. This doc is so vague, and asking them to sign as-is? Get real.

[shootthecops]

prediction: once again people will f**k themselves by being apathetic. nihilism and technology dont mesh well...

MS rejecting open standards-what a shocker!

[kojacked]

Open say who? IBM? Where's there cloud?

[Angmarr]

as much as I dont like how monopolies not complying to others, I do not agree with how these terms were presented with so many restrictions!

[tm_anon]

What restrictions? That proprietary standards shouldn't be used or created in order to lock the customer in?

[Angmarr]

that considering Amazon & Microsoft is signing it, they should have a say. It's a capitalistic environment, and its the best.

[tm_anon]

The Manifesto says nothing about what standards get used. It just says that standards need to be in place so customers don't get locked in. By the way, Amazon and Microsoft didn't sign it and yet Microsoft was invited to talks on Monday about standards.

It's a good Manifesto, really good. You should read it before commenting.

[Angmarr]

i misspelled ... I meant considering how they are squired to sign it ... I believe companies also having a say in what they are required to sign...

[PeterEvans2]

Cloud Computing?

Clearly swayed in the direction of encouraging vastly increased costs for businesses paying to access the software *they will never own nor control*, while simultaneously decreasing costs for those offering the software (and giving them absolutely no reason for reducing selling price).

THE NET RESULT: Any business that uses the internet to access software they don't own will be held hostage for additional price increases, *assured* of security theft, will lose control over any proprietary data (clients contracts, price lists, unit production costs, corporate strategies, etc., etc.), require yet another high-priced I.T. to show what went wrong (when it non-stop does), and on and on.

If you actually allow your business to participate in any form of cloud computing you will pay and pay again for that decision, and good luck.

[pentest]

Yup cloud computing is a meaningless term used to try and make something old seem new. However, open standards will ensure that control rests with the customer, which is exactly why MS and Amazon don't like it.

[king_geore]

I am always amazed at the incendiary remarks about Microsoft and wonder how long some of you have been around. Do you remember when no program could share with another? When very program was an island? Microsoft is the one that integrated so many programs that we now have complete suites such as office and open office. I agree it is not always easy to get the full API?s out of Microsoft however I also see that there are a great many third party applications integrated with windows. I see many plug and play with windows very well and I see many using open office and internet browsers in place of the Microsoft offerings. Lets face it if your product is better we will use it but don?t blame Microsoft if we choose not to use your offering; make yours better so we will choose it.

As for cloud computing I am not ready to place my data on someone else?s computer, pay every time I use an application and maybe looses my rights to my data. What will you do when the company hosting your application decides to change the rules of ownership or go out of business with insufficient notice for you to move all your data to another site?

I will shut up if you can show me another company that did so much to supply such integration and ease of use. When I saw, 16 years ago, a six year old showing an eight year old how to use a computer I knew someone was moving in the right direction and that someone was Microsoft.

[pentest]

The reason applications only run on one OS is precisely because of MS and its lock in. Writing a program that is standards complaint such as POSIX, ensures it will run on multiple platforms. Writing against MS's closed API's ensures it is very difficult to port it.

MS is not offering integration or ease of use. Windows and Office are among the most difficult OS's and office suites to use and configure.

Your glorification of MS is ignorant and scary.

[gggg sssss]

@pentest Name two applications of widespread use and value that are NOT written to MS standards. Something useful that does not run on Windows.

[tm_anon]

@gggg sssss

Maybe you should try not putting walls around every argument you want someone to make. Open source code is written with interoperability in mind specifically to allow for users of Windows, OS X, Linux, BSD and any other OS to be able to use the software.

This means that, yes, it will run on Windows. Now, name several programs which won't run on any other OS besides Windows and you'll see the point pentest was making. MS causes lock-in, forces it by lack of standards compliance.

[Renegade Knight]

Yes I remember why every program was an island. I also remember 20+ years of being burned by that island and will advocte at every changce that we get away from the islands locking out data to products and instead move to open data file standards. Let the apps stand on their ability to do a job and not the lock in that costs my time and money to recreate work arleady done.

[gsigas]

I agree with the sentiment that this was a setup. If it was a sincere attempt there would have been no problem in allowing two of the major players input into the document as well as time to review it. I believe the intent was to have Microsoft reject it for the sake of publicity.

[tm_anon]

Except for one little problem. MS products lock the customer in to other MS products. I haven't used Amazon software but I've heard the same is true from them.

I didn't see them making any counter-points to the Manifesto and the argument from MS for why they didn't sign actually points to them wanting to lock customers in.

[t8]

If open standards are to have a chance, I think Google needs to sign on.
They are a bigger web presence than Amazon and Microsoft combined and Cloud Computing is in their DNA.

[psm0110]

WSJ reports the Google will NOT be signing on. Don't be fooled, this a PR stunt by IBM under the guise of open standards to back-door itself into all the work that Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Salesforce have done. Also don't be a fool and think Google wants you to easily port its apps to run on a Microsoft or Amazon cloud. That would be like asking for an Open Search Advertising Standard.

[Renegade Knight]

IBM has a clue about what's needed. They are doing well in the modern world of computing and business. Most of the rest are grasping at straws because they can see their market shrinking.

[kojacked]

I'm gonna come up with my own manifesto. I'll be sure and use the word's "Open" and "Standards" and "no lock-in" in it a lot so I can claim I'm doing this for everyone's best interest (You know there are so many chumps out there that see those words and think I'm their savior). I won't consider the work that Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, and the like have already done and label them "evil" because they don't sign my manifesto.

Now where did I put my copy of the Communist Manifesto?...

BTW, I have this bridge you might be interested in...

[AppleSuxLeo]

Manifesto ??? Who was behind it ? Patty "Tanya" Hearst ? The SLA ?
Hugo Chavez perhaps ?

[wpuell]

I think that Microsoft should disappear because it is a company that wants it all to yourself. egoista dominates this damn tricky and not let other monopoly Companys modernismo show me in particular created a virus to destroy Linux but it is time that could the microsoft desaparesca forever Companys pc support and other software better than Microsoft.

[quikboy2]

You guys are so harsh. Just because MS and Amazon aren't interested in this so-called "Manifesto", doesn't mean they don't do or try open standards. Sheesh.