4 ms·

>Not really. When people buy Office 365, they're primarily purchasing a the MS Office product, and the cloud just happens to be the mechanism of delivery. And

>Not really. When people buy Office 365, they're primarily purchasing a the MS Office product, and the cloud just happens to be the mechanism of delivery. And when people buy Amazon RDS, they're primarily purchasing a database product, and the cloud just happens to be the mechanism of delivery. Imagine if Amazon was forced to "unbundle" Amazon RDS. Consumers could purchase a license to run the database on any platform. On of which might be hosted AWS. What percent of the Amazon RDS revenue would accrue to the products division compared to the cloud division... -- Yes, this is the literal definition of a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

duskwuff 8y ago
Amazon RDS is literally just a hosted offering of an off-the-shelf database server (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server). There isn't really anything there to "unbundle". Amazon Aurora does appear to be a somewhat unique offering, but it appears to be tightly coupled to their infrastructure; I doubt that it could be unbundled without major rearchitecture.
addicted 8y ago
But there are unbundled DBs that people run. PostgreSQL, mongo, MySQL and the majority of those are run on the AWS cloud. There is clearly a distinction here. For example, I don’t know if the word Azure is even mentioned when I go to buy an O365 license.
- amf12 8y ago
  > But there are unbundled DBs that people run. PostgreSQL, mongo, MySQL And people can still buy standalone Office installations. > For example, I don’t know if the word Azure is even mentioned when I go to buy an O365 license. How does this matter? Microsoft includes this as Cloud revenue and not Azure revenue.
kurtisc 8y ago
I don't think this is that fallacy. It's also fallacious to dismiss something as wrong if an argument in its favour uses a fallacy. If something is described as 'cloud' but uses a definition most people don't recognise or describe as 'cloud', that's at least worth noting. It's arguably prescriptive linguistics.

duskwuff 8y ago

Amazon RDS is literally just a hosted offering of an off-the-shelf database server (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server). There isn't really anything there to "unbundle". Amazon Aurora does appear to be a somewhat unique offering, but it appears to be tightly coupled to their infrastructure; I doubt that it could be unbundled without major rearchitecture.

addicted 8y ago

But there are unbundled DBs that people run. PostgreSQL, mongo, MySQL and the majority of those are run on the AWS cloud. There is clearly a distinction here. For example, I don’t know if the word Azure is even mentioned when I go to buy an O365 license.

amf12 8y ago
> But there are unbundled DBs that people run. PostgreSQL, mongo, MySQL And people can still buy standalone Office installations. > For example, I don’t know if the word Azure is even mentioned when I go to buy an O365 license. How does this matter? Microsoft includes this as Cloud revenue and not Azure revenue.

kurtisc 8y ago

I don't think this is that fallacy. It's also fallacious to dismiss something as wrong if an argument in its favour uses a fallacy. If something is described as 'cloud' but uses a definition most people don't recognise or describe as 'cloud', that's at least worth noting. It's arguably prescriptive linguistics.