9 ms·

>well that would be a lot of choice for the developers! A sad choice though. The centralization of computation is likely not a good thing in the long run.

by hueving 10y ago

scarmig 10y ago
The absolute level of computation available isn't changing at the consumer level. What's happening for the next decade is the destruction of businesses hosting their own IT infrastructure and moving it to a couple of core centers. So, the computational "Gini index" is increasing, but no one is being thrown into computational poverty.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The parent comment doesn't seem to specify "consumer level" and the loss of businesses having their own infrastructure is equally troubling. Everyone is putting a lot of eggs in a very small number of baskets.
  - cjmcqueen 10y ago
    I would disagree about the character of the situation. This isn't about people putting eggs in a few baskets, it's that it's more efficient to have centralized chicken coops instead of every family in the world owning their own chickens. Now, you could play with that analogy further and see some issues as well, but I don't think the issue here is centralized failure; all these data centers/"clouds" are at least good. The Cloud is about businesses focusing on core business and not supporting functions. [Disclosure, I work on the Google Cloud team, I'm biased]
    - aaronblohowiak 10y ago
      Monocultures are efficient, but not healthy ecosystems in the long term.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      > it's that it's more efficient to have centralized chicken coops instead of every family in the world owning their own chickens. Only if the owner of the chicken-coop has everyone else's best interests in mind. Protip: They don't. The Cloud isn't about efficiency, it's about data control. Getting people's systems and data into Google/AWS/etc helps with data mining, vendor lock-in, etc. Often times that can be efficient, but also it often isn't.
    - cestith 10y ago
      Let's look at your metaphor. It's more efficient for the raising of a large overall number of chickens. It's less efficient when I need fast access to a single egg. Hence we get caching. There's the farms, then the inbound warehouses, then the distribution centers, then the grocer, then our refrigerators by the dozen or dozen and a half. When your local cache is empty of eggs, though, it requires a trip back out to the grocer to get an egg even if you need nothing else that trip. Then you generally have to buy at least half a dozen if not a dozen or more eggs just to get the one you wanted. If I have my own couple of hens, I can go out into the yard and get an egg. If that's the whole of my fetch list, it's much more efficient for this single egg to have the hens laying right out back. This whole few baskets metaphor breaks down from another point of view, though, when we consider that by the very nature of using a globally distributed hosted service we're actually eliminating a single basket problem. Yes, there's not much choice among just Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. (That they are the only options is a bit of a strawman, but lets grant this one legs.) However, putting just your own employees in charge of all your infrastructure in just your own datacenter(s) in just PostgreSQL or just MySQL is another single-basket problem. Spreading it out so that someone else gets to manage the hardware and the service and replicating your data widely within that service is from that point of view more baskets. You get more datacenter baskets, more employee baskets, and more software baskets. Using standard SQL means you can move among compliant software later, too, so you're not as tied to those baskets. Now, back to your coop analogy. What's stopping me from having my application talk to Cloud Spanner and a local database proxy (or a work queue that sits between the app and the DB or whichever) so I can use Google's reliability for transactions and my local cached replicant for query speed when I'm querying older data? Why can't I keep a few eggs around? Also, why would I be scared of Google or Amazon "having my data"? Why would I put sensitive data into my own database in plaintext and then replicate it among multiple datacenters that way?
    - hueving 10y ago
      >focusing on core business and not supporting functions. Having a devops team with the necessary expertise in Google Cloud or AWS is still a supporting function. You've just traded one skill (managing physical servers) for another (managing proprietary virtual resources).
      - euyyn 10y ago
        But hopefully a smaller team, and one that keeps diminishing in size over the years if the trend continues. At least for the same level of service (in availability, security, etc.).
    - dreamfactory2 10y ago
      > The Cloud is about businesses focusing on core business and not supporting functions Yep, it inevitably trends towards commodity infrastructure. As such it will require regulation (and eventually even some form of nationalisation in some cases)
  - euyyn 10y ago
    That's like being sad about the emergence of banks, because everybody's money is being kept in a small number of vaults instead of under each one's mattress.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      A good point, but there is an up and downside to everything. The centralization of IT does impact civil liberties and possibly innovation - unlike FOSS and other local systems, aspiring hackers can't tinker with Facebook code and see how it works.
      - euyyn 10y ago
        I don't understand how Facebook relates to this, as they don't rent their cloud. Aspiring hackers couldn't tinker with MS Word 2000 code either.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > Aspiring hackers couldn't tinker with MS Word 2000 code either. They could tinker with the binaries, something many did with game binaries. But your point is well taken; open source is also very valuable to innovation.
        euyyn 10y ago
        Web apps were also very useful for learning JS and browser APIs, before everybody started minimizing and obfuscating it. I learned how to write a rich-text editor just by looking at the code of Hotmail's email editor.
        hackuser 10y ago
        Fair enough, but think of that free and open stack: (layer 1), Ethernet, IP, TCP/UDP, HTTP/SMTP/DNS/etc, HTML/JavaScript. How many cut their teeth on those? The apps on top, Facebook, Snapchat, etc., are not so open and much of what they do is out of reach from the user. Also, I meant to add above: People could tinker with data files (e.g., Word docs), configurations, etc. The whole system was local and accessible. You could write local code, such as VB or for Windows, that integrated with those systems.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The absolute level of computation available isn't changing at the consumer level. Maybe not, but consumers increasingly use centralized computation resources. I would guess that by now most applications used by consumers run in their web browser, such as Facebook.
- hueving 10y ago
  >What's happening for the next decade is the destruction of businesses hosting their own IT infrastructure and moving it to a couple of core centers. Yes, and this will be disadvantageous over the long run for people that want to run things themselves. Ultimately companies like AMD/Intel go where the big money is at. As things centralize further and further, there will only be 3 customers they care about in the server market.
  - jghn 10y ago
    This isn't true. They desperately want to enable users outside of the big cloud vendors as they have very little price leverage over the big vendors
    - hueving 10y ago
      But that won't matter if users keep moving to the cloud. They will be forced to just work on whatever Amazon/Microsoft/Google want.
progman 10y ago
> The centralization of computation is likely not a good thing in the long run. I agree. It only makes sense if you need special data for statistics, AI training, etc. In all other cases the classic way of programming on pc and notebook is smarter. If you do everything in the cloud, what if you lose Internet connection? I had that experience several times over the last years.
- dzhiurgis 10y ago
  My internet connection is more stable than my computer.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's widely true. Consider: * Most Internet usage is via smartphone * Computers are much more stable than they used to be * Much of the world lives in places with less stable connections * The most expensive spec in an Internet connection is availability. You can get a low-end 15 Mbps connection with no availability guarantee for $40/month; a T1 is one-tenth the speed and costs 10 times as much (all numbers are rough estimates).
    - dzhiurgis 10y ago
      You mentioned smartphone. Once your computer dies you can use your smartphone. You can use your neighbours or colleagues computer. It's only so many heavy industries that definitely need some sort of local infrastructure (probably not master tho) to be locally.
throwawaydbfif 10y ago
The movement from ownership to renting on the web is absolutely terrifying to me. Within the span of a few years we've gone from owning our technology to renting it out from a big players for monthly fees that we cannot completely predict or control. The advantages of owning your own hardware will never go away, but soon this will be made quite intentionally impossible as the big players coalesce and continue building their walled gardens. This is already happening. All the big players own their hardware and rent it out to everyone else, while trying to convince everyone it's not worth owning your own hardware at the same time. These companies have already begun closing off server platforms by developing custom hardware and software systems that cannot be bought for any price, only rented. These systems represent a new breed of technology with unbreakable vendor lock in. Theses same companies compete with each other and countless other companies across the space. Take for example a start-up that wants to run their own app store. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft all run app stores. Where will this company go for cloud services? Their only big name options are to host their software on the hardware of a direct competitor. Their host has full visibility on how their system works, and control over the pricing and reliability of their machines. It's laughable to think their "cloud partner" will give them any chance to compete if they enter the same market. We've seen UEFI BIOS and un-unlockable mobiles enter the market in droves the last few years. A lot of new PC's can't run anything except windows. A lot of new phones can only run the carrier's version of android. We have all these general purpose CPUs that can no longer run general purpose programs because "security", and a lot of lobbyist pushing to make it actually illegal to run your own software on these with "anti tampering" laws, again for "security" . Soon the big guys (same companies, MS and Google) will make it impossible to run your own software on any reasonably inexpensive devices and the walled market will be complete. Mark my words, I've never seen an industry with a couple big players where growth and innovation doesn't eventually turn into collusion, higher prices, and market stagnation. Once MS, Google and Amazon have their slice of the pie and they've killed off everyone else, we will see the death of general purpose computers and mobile devices. Everything you buy will be "android computer" "windows computer" and "apple computer". Anything general purpose will be massively more expensive because individual companies can't get the kind of volume discount of the giant behemoths that increasingly control large swaths of the world's computing power. We've already seen the endgame, with Amazon trialing an "on premesis" version of their compute platform which is basically a super locked down server that you can't buy, only rent endlessly. The future of on premesis will be a cloud in a black box if these companies have anything to do with it. Why? Because once they've got you locked in it makes no sense to sell you anything for keeps. Why keep improving their product so you buy the new version when they can just make it incompatible with everything else and force you to rent it forever, for whatever price they feel like charging? One day running your own servers will be like running your own ISP . Massively impractical because the free market has been manipulated to the point that it effectively no longer exists
nickpsecurity 10y ago
We've already been through it. People eventually abandoned mainframes for everything they could. Many of the current customers are interested in better solutions but just stuck due to lock-in of piles of COBOL, etc.

>well that would be a lot of choice for the developers! A sad choice though. The centralization of computation is likely not a good thing in the long run.

by hueving 10y ago

>well that would be a lot of choice for the developers! A sad choice though. The centralization of computation is likely not a good thing in the long run.

scarmig 10y ago

The absolute level of computation available isn't changing at the consumer level. What's happening for the next decade is the destruction of businesses hosting their own IT infrastructure and moving it to a couple of core centers. So, the computational "Gini index" is increasing, but no one is being thrown into computational poverty.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
The parent comment doesn't seem to specify "consumer level" and the loss of businesses having their own infrastructure is equally troubling. Everyone is putting a lot of eggs in a very small number of baskets.
- cjmcqueen 10y ago
  I would disagree about the character of the situation. This isn't about people putting eggs in a few baskets, it's that it's more efficient to have centralized chicken coops instead of every family in the world owning their own chickens. Now, you could play with that analogy further and see some issues as well, but I don't think the issue here is centralized failure; all these data centers/"clouds" are at least good. The Cloud is about businesses focusing on core business and not supporting functions. [Disclosure, I work on the Google Cloud team, I'm biased]
  - aaronblohowiak 10y ago
    Monocultures are efficient, but not healthy ecosystems in the long term.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > it's that it's more efficient to have centralized chicken coops instead of every family in the world owning their own chickens. Only if the owner of the chicken-coop has everyone else's best interests in mind. Protip: They don't. The Cloud isn't about efficiency, it's about data control. Getting people's systems and data into Google/AWS/etc helps with data mining, vendor lock-in, etc. Often times that can be efficient, but also it often isn't.
  - cestith 10y ago
    Let's look at your metaphor. It's more efficient for the raising of a large overall number of chickens. It's less efficient when I need fast access to a single egg. Hence we get caching. There's the farms, then the inbound warehouses, then the distribution centers, then the grocer, then our refrigerators by the dozen or dozen and a half. When your local cache is empty of eggs, though, it requires a trip back out to the grocer to get an egg even if you need nothing else that trip. Then you generally have to buy at least half a dozen if not a dozen or more eggs just to get the one you wanted. If I have my own couple of hens, I can go out into the yard and get an egg. If that's the whole of my fetch list, it's much more efficient for this single egg to have the hens laying right out back. This whole few baskets metaphor breaks down from another point of view, though, when we consider that by the very nature of using a globally distributed hosted service we're actually eliminating a single basket problem. Yes, there's not much choice among just Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. (That they are the only options is a bit of a strawman, but lets grant this one legs.) However, putting just your own employees in charge of all your infrastructure in just your own datacenter(s) in just PostgreSQL or just MySQL is another single-basket problem. Spreading it out so that someone else gets to manage the hardware and the service and replicating your data widely within that service is from that point of view more baskets. You get more datacenter baskets, more employee baskets, and more software baskets. Using standard SQL means you can move among compliant software later, too, so you're not as tied to those baskets. Now, back to your coop analogy. What's stopping me from having my application talk to Cloud Spanner and a local database proxy (or a work queue that sits between the app and the DB or whichever) so I can use Google's reliability for transactions and my local cached replicant for query speed when I'm querying older data? Why can't I keep a few eggs around? Also, why would I be scared of Google or Amazon "having my data"? Why would I put sensitive data into my own database in plaintext and then replicate it among multiple datacenters that way?
  - hueving 10y ago
    >focusing on core business and not supporting functions. Having a devops team with the necessary expertise in Google Cloud or AWS is still a supporting function. You've just traded one skill (managing physical servers) for another (managing proprietary virtual resources).
    - euyyn 10y ago
      But hopefully a smaller team, and one that keeps diminishing in size over the years if the trend continues. At least for the same level of service (in availability, security, etc.).
  - dreamfactory2 10y ago
    > The Cloud is about businesses focusing on core business and not supporting functions Yep, it inevitably trends towards commodity infrastructure. As such it will require regulation (and eventually even some form of nationalisation in some cases)
- euyyn 10y ago
  That's like being sad about the emergence of banks, because everybody's money is being kept in a small number of vaults instead of under each one's mattress.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    A good point, but there is an up and downside to everything. The centralization of IT does impact civil liberties and possibly innovation - unlike FOSS and other local systems, aspiring hackers can't tinker with Facebook code and see how it works.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      I don't understand how Facebook relates to this, as they don't rent their cloud. Aspiring hackers couldn't tinker with MS Word 2000 code either.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > Aspiring hackers couldn't tinker with MS Word 2000 code either. They could tinker with the binaries, something many did with game binaries. But your point is well taken; open source is also very valuable to innovation.
        euyyn 10y ago
        Web apps were also very useful for learning JS and browser APIs, before everybody started minimizing and obfuscating it. I learned how to write a rich-text editor just by looking at the code of Hotmail's email editor.
        hackuser 10y ago
        Fair enough, but think of that free and open stack: (layer 1), Ethernet, IP, TCP/UDP, HTTP/SMTP/DNS/etc, HTML/JavaScript. How many cut their teeth on those? The apps on top, Facebook, Snapchat, etc., are not so open and much of what they do is out of reach from the user. Also, I meant to add above: People could tinker with data files (e.g., Word docs), configurations, etc. The whole system was local and accessible. You could write local code, such as VB or for Windows, that integrated with those systems.
hackuser 10y ago
> The absolute level of computation available isn't changing at the consumer level. Maybe not, but consumers increasingly use centralized computation resources. I would guess that by now most applications used by consumers run in their web browser, such as Facebook.
hueving 10y ago
>What's happening for the next decade is the destruction of businesses hosting their own IT infrastructure and moving it to a couple of core centers. Yes, and this will be disadvantageous over the long run for people that want to run things themselves. Ultimately companies like AMD/Intel go where the big money is at. As things centralize further and further, there will only be 3 customers they care about in the server market.
- jghn 10y ago
  This isn't true. They desperately want to enable users outside of the big cloud vendors as they have very little price leverage over the big vendors
  - hueving 10y ago
    But that won't matter if users keep moving to the cloud. They will be forced to just work on whatever Amazon/Microsoft/Google want.

progman 10y ago

> The centralization of computation is likely not a good thing in the long run. I agree. It only makes sense if you need special data for statistics, AI training, etc. In all other cases the classic way of programming on pc and notebook is smarter. If you do everything in the cloud, what if you lose Internet connection? I had that experience several times over the last years.

dzhiurgis 10y ago
My internet connection is more stable than my computer.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's widely true. Consider: * Most Internet usage is via smartphone * Computers are much more stable than they used to be * Much of the world lives in places with less stable connections * The most expensive spec in an Internet connection is availability. You can get a low-end 15 Mbps connection with no availability guarantee for $40/month; a T1 is one-tenth the speed and costs 10 times as much (all numbers are rough estimates).
  - dzhiurgis 10y ago
    You mentioned smartphone. Once your computer dies you can use your smartphone. You can use your neighbours or colleagues computer. It's only so many heavy industries that definitely need some sort of local infrastructure (probably not master tho) to be locally.

throwawaydbfif 10y ago

The movement from ownership to renting on the web is absolutely terrifying to me. Within the span of a few years we've gone from owning our technology to renting it out from a big players for monthly fees that we cannot completely predict or control. The advantages of owning your own hardware will never go away, but soon this will be made quite intentionally impossible as the big players coalesce and continue building their walled gardens. This is already happening. All the big players own their hardware and rent it out to everyone else, while trying to convince everyone it's not worth owning your own hardware at the same time. These companies have already begun closing off server platforms by developing custom hardware and software systems that cannot be bought for any price, only rented. These systems represent a new breed of technology with unbreakable vendor lock in. Theses same companies compete with each other and countless other companies across the space. Take for example a start-up that wants to run their own app store. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft all run app stores. Where will this company go for cloud services? Their only big name options are to host their software on the hardware of a direct competitor. Their host has full visibility on how their system works, and control over the pricing and reliability of their machines. It's laughable to think their "cloud partner" will give them any chance to compete if they enter the same market. We've seen UEFI BIOS and un-unlockable mobiles enter the market in droves the last few years. A lot of new PC's can't run anything except windows. A lot of new phones can only run the carrier's version of android. We have all these general purpose CPUs that can no longer run general purpose programs because "security", and a lot of lobbyist pushing to make it actually illegal to run your own software on these with "anti tampering" laws, again for "security" . Soon the big guys (same companies, MS and Google) will make it impossible to run your own software on any reasonably inexpensive devices and the walled market will be complete. Mark my words, I've never seen an industry with a couple big players where growth and innovation doesn't eventually turn into collusion, higher prices, and market stagnation. Once MS, Google and Amazon have their slice of the pie and they've killed off everyone else, we will see the death of general purpose computers and mobile devices. Everything you buy will be "android computer" "windows computer" and "apple computer". Anything general purpose will be massively more expensive because individual companies can't get the kind of volume discount of the giant behemoths that increasingly control large swaths of the world's computing power. We've already seen the endgame, with Amazon trialing an "on premesis" version of their compute platform which is basically a super locked down server that you can't buy, only rent endlessly. The future of on premesis will be a cloud in a black box if these companies have anything to do with it. Why? Because once they've got you locked in it makes no sense to sell you anything for keeps. Why keep improving their product so you buy the new version when they can just make it incompatible with everything else and force you to rent it forever, for whatever price they feel like charging? One day running your own servers will be like running your own ISP . Massively impractical because the free market has been manipulated to the point that it effectively no longer exists

nickpsecurity 10y ago

We've already been through it. People eventually abandoned mainframes for everything they could. Many of the current customers are interested in better solutions but just stuck due to lock-in of piles of COBOL, etc.