4 ms·

Glad to see the attempt to split the contract up by appealing for a multi-platform approach failed. A multi-platform approach destroys most of the cloud's valu

Glad to see the attempt to split the contract up by appealing for a multi-platform approach failed. A multi-platform approach destroys most of the cloud's value proposition in the name of avoiding vendor lock-in. At that point you're essentially only using the provider as a glorified data center manager, and I'm pretty sure the DOD has more than enough money to run their own data centers.

erentz 8y ago
I would love someone to explain clearly the strategy of "multi-cloud" products to me, what they do, and how they are long term viable. (I do mean this genuinely because I'm not getting it.) 1. Surely there is no way for any "multi-cloud" company to keep up with the constant changes and growth of products at all these companies that they can abstract between them in any meaningful way without constantly falling behind. 2. And if there is some purpose right now, is that purpose sustainable? Why would Amazon not have every incentive at some point to make it as easy as possible for an existing Microsoft customer to migrate workloads over to their platform, and vice versa. And if/when they get into the game, isn't that essentially game over for any independent product?
- empath75 8y ago
  > Surely there is no way for any "multi-cloud" company to keep up with the constant changes and growth of products at all these companies that they can abstract between them in any meaningful way without constantly falling behind. This is the appeal of kubernetes. And yes, it does make cloud providers glorified datacenters. I think k8s is an existential threat to aws long term. They're not going to be able to maintain their profit margins on ec2.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And Kubernetes still can’t give you all of the benefits of managed databases, queuing, messaging systems, etc. If you’re only using the cloud to do VMs at scale, you’re probably spending more than baremetal and spending just as much on maintenance. Kubernetes adds yet another level of complexity.
  - lima 8y ago
    k8s was a genius move by Google, and it's working. Especially with OpenShift, it will commodize PaaS. I'm hoping the same thing happens with Knative.
    - ben509 8y ago
      That's a great move by Google, but it's a terrible move for Google. I'd love to see PaaS and FaaS commoditized, but precisely because I want to write apps that run on both vendors and transfer capacity back and forth depending on who is cheapest at the moment.
      - mamon 8y ago
        And that works in Google's favor currently, since they are small player entering the PaaS market, and they need to compete with AWS on price, because their offering is less mature and they don't have counterparts to many of AWS services. Making migration easier is a reasonable strategy for them.
- ethbro 8y ago
  > Why would Amazon not have every incentive at some point to make it as easy as possible for an existing Microsoft customer to migrate workloads over to their platform, and vice versa This is what flies in the face of multicloud efforts for me. Now, most of the big cloud provider's new revenue comes from enabling migrations to cloud infrastructure. But that's a finite amount of work. At some future point, everyone who will has already been migrated to the cloud. At that point, all the cloud provider's new business will be in the form of enabling migrations from existing clouds. And then you'll have the resources of Amazon / Microsoft / Google working to enable migrations. Which seems a lot more successful resource match. (That said, at that point cloud vendors could also really start actively turning the screws on making that difficult. But in a three-party world, where two parties don't, it seems unlikely that would succeed in the long run.)
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
For something on the scale of the DOD, it makes very little sense to operate in the cloud, I am still unsure why this is a goal for them, particularly considering both the cost and the security concerns. But single-sourcing your cloud destroys any remaining value proposition: If you become dependent on a single cloud provider's services, they can charge you as much as they want once the current contract is up, and your lock-in means you're going to end up paying it. (Or we all are, since it's the DOD and we pay taxes.) The ten billion dollar contract is nice to have now, but I'm sure Microsoft and Amazon are both really licking their lips for the forty billion dollar renewal ten years later.
- cloakandswagger 8y ago
  The value prop is the same for them as it is for any other company choosing a single cloud: it unlocks a ton of services and basic building blocks which empowers and speeds up software development, as well as providing fundamental stuff like access control and auditing. The concern over vendor lock-in and pricing is one that gets thrown around often, but doesn't really make sense to me. When has Amazon, Microsoft, et al gouged one of their larger customers in the past? Why would they do that when it would destroy their reputation and scare away business? A large customer working with a large company is like any other negotiation, both have leverage and there isn't any feasible scenario where Amazon or Microsoft go completely crazy and start gouging their customers for some short-term gain.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    There's nothing "short-term" about having the entire Department of Defense locked to your services. Our government still runs systems from decades ago.
- ethbro 8y ago
  When you're signing contracts at DoD scale, typically you negotiate a "vendor can only increase prices X amount per year" clause. Companies that get screwed are those who aren't big enough to negotiate that kind of deal up front. But no, a Top 50 or large government type contract is never going to be at the mercy of unexpected price hikes.
otabdeveloper2 8y ago
"A glorified data center manager" is exactly what AWS and Azure are. I don't have enough eyes to roll at the cluelessness of your comment.

erentz 8y ago

I would love someone to explain clearly the strategy of "multi-cloud" products to me, what they do, and how they are long term viable. (I do mean this genuinely because I'm not getting it.) 1. Surely there is no way for any "multi-cloud" company to keep up with the constant changes and growth of products at all these companies that they can abstract between them in any meaningful way without constantly falling behind. 2. And if there is some purpose right now, is that purpose sustainable? Why would Amazon not have every incentive at some point to make it as easy as possible for an existing Microsoft customer to migrate workloads over to their platform, and vice versa. And if/when they get into the game, isn't that essentially game over for any independent product?

empath75 8y ago
> Surely there is no way for any "multi-cloud" company to keep up with the constant changes and growth of products at all these companies that they can abstract between them in any meaningful way without constantly falling behind. This is the appeal of kubernetes. And yes, it does make cloud providers glorified datacenters. I think k8s is an existential threat to aws long term. They're not going to be able to maintain their profit margins on ec2.
- scarface74 8y ago
  And Kubernetes still can’t give you all of the benefits of managed databases, queuing, messaging systems, etc. If you’re only using the cloud to do VMs at scale, you’re probably spending more than baremetal and spending just as much on maintenance. Kubernetes adds yet another level of complexity.
- lima 8y ago
  k8s was a genius move by Google, and it's working. Especially with OpenShift, it will commodize PaaS. I'm hoping the same thing happens with Knative.
  - ben509 8y ago
    That's a great move by Google, but it's a terrible move for Google. I'd love to see PaaS and FaaS commoditized, but precisely because I want to write apps that run on both vendors and transfer capacity back and forth depending on who is cheapest at the moment.
    - mamon 8y ago
      And that works in Google's favor currently, since they are small player entering the PaaS market, and they need to compete with AWS on price, because their offering is less mature and they don't have counterparts to many of AWS services. Making migration easier is a reasonable strategy for them.
ethbro 8y ago
> Why would Amazon not have every incentive at some point to make it as easy as possible for an existing Microsoft customer to migrate workloads over to their platform, and vice versa This is what flies in the face of multicloud efforts for me. Now, most of the big cloud provider's new revenue comes from enabling migrations to cloud infrastructure. But that's a finite amount of work. At some future point, everyone who will has already been migrated to the cloud. At that point, all the cloud provider's new business will be in the form of enabling migrations from existing clouds. And then you'll have the resources of Amazon / Microsoft / Google working to enable migrations. Which seems a lot more successful resource match. (That said, at that point cloud vendors could also really start actively turning the screws on making that difficult. But in a three-party world, where two parties don't, it seems unlikely that would succeed in the long run.)

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

For something on the scale of the DOD, it makes very little sense to operate in the cloud, I am still unsure why this is a goal for them, particularly considering both the cost and the security concerns. But single-sourcing your cloud destroys any remaining value proposition: If you become dependent on a single cloud provider's services, they can charge you as much as they want once the current contract is up, and your lock-in means you're going to end up paying it. (Or we all are, since it's the DOD and we pay taxes.) The ten billion dollar contract is nice to have now, but I'm sure Microsoft and Amazon are both really licking their lips for the forty billion dollar renewal ten years later.

cloakandswagger 8y ago
The value prop is the same for them as it is for any other company choosing a single cloud: it unlocks a ton of services and basic building blocks which empowers and speeds up software development, as well as providing fundamental stuff like access control and auditing. The concern over vendor lock-in and pricing is one that gets thrown around often, but doesn't really make sense to me. When has Amazon, Microsoft, et al gouged one of their larger customers in the past? Why would they do that when it would destroy their reputation and scare away business? A large customer working with a large company is like any other negotiation, both have leverage and there isn't any feasible scenario where Amazon or Microsoft go completely crazy and start gouging their customers for some short-term gain.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  There's nothing "short-term" about having the entire Department of Defense locked to your services. Our government still runs systems from decades ago.
ethbro 8y ago
When you're signing contracts at DoD scale, typically you negotiate a "vendor can only increase prices X amount per year" clause. Companies that get screwed are those who aren't big enough to negotiate that kind of deal up front. But no, a Top 50 or large government type contract is never going to be at the mercy of unexpected price hikes.

otabdeveloper2 8y ago

"A glorified data center manager" is exactly what AWS and Azure are. I don't have enough eyes to roll at the cluelessness of your comment.