Discussion on:

The Cloud isn't a strategy

The cloud is not a tool that fits every need, nor is every cloud the same. Your builder really shouldn't use the sawzall to drive nails, and a cloud is the wrong tool when it comes to serving applications to a rural area with spotty broadband coverage.

That used to be a term for a device where you put in something and receive results. Don't ask how it works just take your results.

That is one of my problems with the term, "The Cloud". "The Cloud" is being advertised as more than a tool. Just put it all in the cloud and you don't have to worry.

Don't worry, be happy. Sure

Finally some sense has come to light. Marketing people wear togas for a reason.

The cloud is a tool and makes tools out of those who think it isn't.

I am not a tecnician I just run the company I work for. I don't understand the main reasons for the "Cloud" I can buy storage very cheaply to keep my data and not rely on Internet servers owned by someone I have no control over. I have a programme that backs up my files automatically and have unlimited storage for about $50 USD a year. If I went that route I would assume I need it in my own country so a government could not turn off my access and bankrupt a country. I am in the UK so i assume we will not go to war with the USA but a terrorist attack on the buildings that internet servers are would be a disater beyond belief. How may times is the data backed up to I assume different building in different regions of a country. What happens if the company hosting it goes bankrupt?. If the data is lost and I don't have a copy it normally means a company say after a fire lasts about 6 months without an emergency plan. I assume i am being silly and not understanding the principles but I find it worrying if people just use the "Cloud" as their whole storage facility. I sometimes work in areas when I am at a clients consulting which is 60% of my time where no internet connections are available such as basements, metal framed and clad buildings. I use an Acer W500 tablet with Word and a CAD programme. These are cheap so I don't need Google apps etc. Can someone help me and explain to me what is my benefit using the Cloud?. I could see the benefit for us if Iran or other country of similar status using the cloud on USA servers as turning it off would have saved us a fortune in sending planes etc.

It's just delivered over the internet.
Often it will be in a bank of servers at the company providing the specific cloud service you bought - sometimes in your neighbourhood. So, yes, you lose control, but you don't have to worry about China (much), since China can't cut off your connection to a node in your part of the world.

What is the benefit? If you need to scale your IT operations up and down a lot (or may need to), then the cloud has distinct advantages: you can dip as shallowly or as deeply as you want as there is no initial investment - you pay for what you use - not for what you needed to use last month. You also get the scale you need a lot faster than by ordering equipment, waiting for delivery, waiting for the setup and testing etc. etc.
So it's a tool with uses. If you don't need it, you don't need it.

Definitely agree with what you posted and how could I not?

Yet, the main issue here is that it adds complexity to the landscape. AND, AT THE SAME TIME, it's marketed as a simplification. This is the big issue.

Ask any IT architect, security professional, or IT pro - some will find a parrallel to Windows/Unix worlds:

The Cloud (as a strategy, not as a tool) is very much like Windows - when it works, everything is swell. Nice experience, bells and whistles, nice and shiny. All so unlike Unices, which require savvy people to operate. Basically, anyone can do it.

The trick is... again like Win/Unix: When the cloud-based infrastructure breaks, then the unsavvy, productive user that was king is left in the middle of the desert, not knowing which end is up. While the more expensive Unix user will start fixing up the system he/she understands the working of.


That, to me, is the big issue. The Cloud, as a strategy meant to REDUCE COSTS looks good on Management Reports, yet is counterproductive in reality.

The Cloud in the hands of trained people, is... well, a tool. It can't drive nails, but can make some things easier - such as Public Web/Documentation/Information dissemination.

Would it be a best practice to let others manage the security of our data? Well, the same question was asked about banks about 3-4 centuries ago - it turns out that yes, money in the bank is safer than under the mat... until the bank goes belly up, that is. So, there will be no answer that fits all. The only answer that is true is: IT DEPENDS. And it's not cheaper, it is more complex.

Bravo, Patrick - you hit the nail (gun) on the head.

The "Cloud" is nothing more than what used to be called time-sharing or co-location or hosted services. The only difference is that rather than having a private network with leased lines for access, application or physical hosting is now accessed more flexibly via the internet. It happens that competition has driven down the costs of hosting so that the decision to host or buy is more frequently "host".

The equipment still exists and all the issues of privacy, security and availability are not avoided - only hidden and therefore more difficult to monitor and control. It used to be part of any hosting agreement to care, deeply, how well the host would manage their data centers for high availability. Calling something a "Cloud" does not eliminate the need for such due-diligence.

Some particular applications lend themselves to being hosted by a specialty software company, as with the overworn example of salesforce.com, but it is the quality of the application that is being purchased, not the delivery mechanism.

By dismissing Cloud as "yet another mercurial technical tool or buzzword" you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology shift that is going on. We've had technology shifts before like the move from mainframe to minicomputers to distributed PCs to the era of Client/Server. If I wanted my company to make use of the new technology, I needed a strategy in place so I could capitalize on both the new tools and the new business opportunities that those new tools facilitate. You talk about Cloud in terms of IT cost reduction. That's focussing on one piece of the Cloud toolset, Infrastructure as a Service when there is a lot more to the "cloud stack" than just that. If I look at this as a software provider, in the shift from developing on premise applications to Cloud applications I have to change every single aspect of the way I do business. My business model changes from selling licences to monthly subscriptions. I have to change the way I incent my sales force, the way I approach the market, the way I do my billing and administration, the way I implement new customers, the way I service the customers. Suddenly the balance of risk has changed so that I have the lion's share of the risk - I need my customer to be satisfied so that they stay with me and grow their customer base - it's all about helping people buy from me rather than just selling to them. Putting myself in my customer's shoes, the way they buy and use applications is completely different. I can try and buy where before I had to build a cost justified business case. This topic is so much more that just about saving IT costs, so the smart companies need a strategy on how to adopt and shift from the old way to the new and the new opportunities it opens up for their supply chain and the way the work with their customers. This is all made more important because the shift to Cloud is happening at the same time as two other big shifts - mobile and social. Smart CIOs can see how the strategic nature of the way their job is changing.


By the way, I speak as someone who proudly owns a Binford Tools polo shirt. Actually going back to your builder analogy you are absolutely right that you wouldn't expect to discuss the particular tools or building materials he was going to use. However, you would expect to sit down with the architect and agree a style for building your dream home, like "ultra-modern with lots of glass and an emphasis on green technology" (or some other choice).

His point was that "we'll use the cloud" isn't the strategy itself. It may, as you point out, *result* in a new strategy being developed to implement the *tools* (i.e. "the cloud"), or it may result in the current strategy being adjusted to incorporate necessary changes due to the change in tools. However, that can happen with *any* change in tools. Say, for example, a corporation decides that it's time to upgrade the OS on their PCs, which are currently running XP -- and to avoid any arguments, they've decided to stay with a Microsoft OS to minimize staff retraining. Whether their strategy will be to upgrade now to Windows 7, or wait until Windows 8 becomes available, could be in large part affected by how new their PC hardware is: fairly new hardware (i.e. acquired within the past 1-3 years) would probably run Windows 8 just fine, but older hardware might need to be replaced. They'll also have to make decisions based on application compatibilites -- not merely on prewritten or "canned" software, but also anything developed in-house. And should they decide they want to choose a "cloud" tool approach, that will mean major changes to their hardware & infrastructure strategies: do they have enough bandwidth in their backbone to provide connectivity to the cloud servers for their app needs? Does the particular cloud solution they're considering have the right apps for their needs? How do they handle integration of in-house-developed apps into the cloud solution? Do they start an IT project & spend the money to convert their in-house apps to apps that can be deployed by their cloud provider, or even just convert the data for use by a prewritten cloud app?

And it all boils down, then, to cost. Not just how much will be spent now, but how much down the road? Are there any up-front costs associated with *not* changing...and how long will it take for the projected monthly savings to recover the up-front expenditures? Assuming there *are* any monthly cost-savings?

Hi spdragoo@... 1,
Understand your explanation on IT upgrades major or minor. You're seeing Cloud as "just a tool" like Patrick. My point was that Cloud opens the door to new business models, new ways of working with clients/partners, new opportunities from aggregated data that weren't available with on premise, single tenant apps. Patrick explained you need a strategy to make the shift (like any IT upgrade). I'm trying to say it's more than just that.

Cloud storage changes already happened with Google docs - that's finding its proper place and proportions now.

New payment schemes, sure. New product distribution methods, obviously.
New business models? How? Having a payment scheme and distribution method is NOT a business model, it's simple a business enabler, and a prerequisite for business. It's an add-in, not a replacement.

Please explain what it is exactly you see as all new, here. And not simply one more option of the old.

The ways we can handle data and cooperation is changing, yes. But even that is more of a continuation of what already was. In my industry we used to send files and translation memory files in email, now they're delivered from a portal, or over a cloudservice. Little difference, really, unless you have a large team working simultaneous at different parts of a ginormous text.

I don't see how the cloud differs from what we previously called 'client-server delivered via time-share' model. The old way used dumb terminals, dial-up lines, and a mainframe; the new ways uses a web browser, fiber, and a server farm. I'm missing what's new about the strategic model itself, beyond the tactical tools used to implement it.

Can you dumb it down for me? How is "the cloud" opening the door to new business models? Do I really need the cloud for these new models?

In your first post you speak of a technology shift. I don't see it that way. This has all the appearances of a marketing shift to me. Maybe that will open new business models maybe not.

.

What you say is true. But it all comes down to money.

You made the analogy of Mainframe/Distributed computing... the shift happened... because of money. It's more efficient to do it that way.

A business changes because of money. It is more profitable to do it like that. Things made in China are made in China because they're cheaper.

Same with the Cloud. A change in Business model, in strategy, accepting a risk is all about money. And yes, having one more option on the plate may change the model.

But, let us not forget one thing. Technology is not there for it's own sake. The one that makes it is the one which helps the bottom line. As simple as that.

And, in reality, the sales pitch of the Cloud is the cost reduction. No one would accept that hey - we spend the same, take on some risk and it ends up costing the same as before.


Back to your analogy - this seems like a storing money in a banks (or even better as bonds). All is much safer and efficient until the banking system crashes. Then, your bonds lose value. Still, if nothing bad happens, bonds are safer than storing money under the mattress. But are they safer than gold in a private safe? That is the question: Is the Cloud the reason why we MUST rethink our processes to accomodate it? Or should we use the Cloud when appropriate?

So, you want to move to the cloud? What you're really saying is "this is too hard to figure out, let someone else do it". Lets say you move the company's data to "XYZ Storage" and downsize your IT Dept. Lets also suppose, without your knowledge, some company out there, who is a major hacker target, also moves their data to XYZ Storage thinking it's safer there but, you guessed it, XYZ is compromised. Would that be a problem for you knowing all your companies intelectual property and customer data now belongs to "supernova" and his friends? This is "guilt by association" of course, you would not have been a target if you hadn't moved you data.

Also, lets remember the Internet is fragile and can be taken out by many things as innocent as bad code or a solar flare. No net, no data, no work, no profit, no job.... So, do us all a favor, store your own data, manage your own services, hire some staff and help keep America working, it really does matter in the long run!

HUH? I woke up this morning and walked outside-oh no! Someone may kill me. Run back in.
I guess I'll scrap my cloud idea for our product because, according to you, there's a good chance I'll be compromised in a cloud, and assuming I'm safe in "my home". What nonsense.

we recently lost external connectivity when a contractor in the nearest city dug up and damaged a communications line, then buried it without disclosing his mistake. The only services we could reach were those hosted in the building. No, this doesn't happen often. Depending on the business and the type of services outsourced, it can be tolerated every three or four years.

On the other hand, we're a manufacturing plant. We live and die daily on our ERP package. Because we're part of an international company, that software and data is hosted by a services provider on the other side of the Atlantic. The combination of trans-Atlantic link and less-than-satisfactory provider does not deliver the reliability we desire. (I won't go into the corporate political reasons we can't ditch the provider.) In order to get that reliability, we set up a server at our location. Several times a day we mirror the data most essential to keeping the assembly lines running.

Outsourcing services doesn't have to be an 'all or nothing' proposition, whether it's IT, accounting, or manufacturing. The key is to determine the proper 'make vs. buy' mix. Due diligence in selecting those who will provide the services is part of that decision.

Keep America working! We often take different strategies in cost reduction to benefit the bottom line but, in the end decisions like fire the IT department and outsource the work to an overseas operation is a disaster; even though you show an immediate reduction in cost, you ultimately put the people out of work who buy your product so, overtime you will loose! The cloud shows promise for some ventures (especially pilot ventures and new product line offerings), but for me, keeping things in-house is safer and smarter... Renting a house saves you the initial investment of associated costs of ownership, no maintenance, etc... At the end of the day when the lights go out, you are left with nothing... Owning has a potential for profit...Renting does not!

This is as good a description as I've seen, Patrick. Thank you.

Way back in the 70s when I started in IT there were large, expensive computers in central locations that took up whole rooms. If you had a company you could buy some time on these machines to, say, run your payroll. (Today that processing power is less than I have on my Droid) It was called "Timesharing".

Today the same thing is rebranded "The Cloud", though it is directly accessible via the Internet (which didn't exist until Al Gore sat down and invented it and is comprised of many smaller less expensive computers instead of 1 massive one.

"the cloud"??is a collection of tools to facilitate the outsourcing of not just an application, but the whole application framework and the infrastructure on which it runs. Certainly you can find most of the cloud technology components in use over the past couple of decades, but we are in a new era. The whole mind set is changing. Companies can now treat their IT services as a commodity. This will work for some and not for others, but it is more than simply a tool.

There will be a whole host of new businesses that come into existence purely because cloud services are available. Small businesses will be able to have large IT provisioning capabilities like they have never had before. If I started a new IT business today I would certainly adopt a cloud strategy for IT provisioning, my deployment would be based on a cloud strategy and my clients' costs would be directly proportional to my costs. What's more I could run it from my home.

For large organizations it is about a cost efficiency strategy. The efficient usage of hardware and IT resources will pay dividends in the end.

The long term objective of cloud based IT provisioning is to be as transparent as your electricity supplier. The ability for your company to move to a totally serviced IT operation from our current models is strategic not just tooling...

As I see it, with the exponential rate of growth of Data thats becoming 'oh so mandatory' . Its not right for the Small & Medium size enterprises having to add data centers to store this data , when they are actually required to downsize their budgets in the current economy. They would rather want to "rent" a data center than own it in its entirity which is a costly affair.
Agreed its a tool not a strategy, but in today's economics I see it as a big part of any IT strategy. Besides, its just data which can be 'moved' around , whatever the changes come into future.
I would certainly vouch for It to be a strategic tool or a tool for any forthcoming strategy.
The aspect which I am more concerned about is the security!

Cloud computing is NOT for everyone but it is for some! I support medical facilities (SMB) that use 3rd party offsite technicians (Me basically) to maintain their enterprises. None larger than 25 pc's (mix of desktop / laptop). The database engine is usually SQL based. The cost of a new server (not a simple server for app but raid 5 mixed with raid 1 or 0 or a raid 10 setup with anywhere from 15 to 25 cals,) coupled with SQL (mostly Microsoft), maintainenance of the enterprise...far outweighs the cost of monthly service using rdp to a medical server proprietary for that app. They have worked out all the issues and brunt the cost of upgrading, maintaining, troubleshooting their networks. This doesn't mean that they are perfect but then neither is their local enterprise. A lesser evil of the 2...the CLOUD. Connectivity; no different than running a local enterprise. Everyone settles for 90/95% + functionality. I loose money with cloud service but it also opens me up to more customers based on my infrastructure and I can much more easily remedy a malfunctioning pc than a problematic network. No server licensing issues, no SQL engine, rdp client (makes the O/S almost any flavor ready), a printer or 2 and you have a functional setup with as much uptime as any local enterprise. So no matter how you look at it, you will find reasons to or not to use the cloud.

Thank God someone is trying to put this hype around "the cloud" into perspective.

I have been watching in amazement to see people who should no better tripping over there feet to join this bandwagon.

Obviously there are many issues about using "the cloud" as even a cost reduction tool. There are various hidden costs that are not easy to compute, such as cost of access, cost of data security, cost of unavailability of information when you need it, etc, etc. As an example we all use gmail/yahoo/hotmail but how many companies would prefer to rely on just these for their corporate communicactions email systems even though they are practically free?

Incidentally, even the term cloud is a hyperbole that confuses reality - obviously what is called the cloud is a set of very hard headed businessmen with large server farms offering services at a price. It is thus important to keep their business imperatives in perspective also.

Clearly there are various situations where a cheap third party solutions has good value, however to use any tool - as very correctly stated the so called cloud is - the decision should be based on a deeper appreciations of all pros and cons - like any other make-or-buy decision