4 ms·

Can I ask why? As I see it, cloud providers are currently entrenched as Lords of Everything because they can both provide the infrastructure and the products t

Can I ask why? As I see it, cloud providers are currently entrenched as Lords of Everything because they can both provide the infrastructure and the products that run on top of it. Making them act more like utility providers would reduce their power, I think.

pjc50 6y ago
Think it through: > enforced separation in law between commercial application providers and storage providers. So, if someone writes an app like Google Docs, they can't just store the data opaquely on their own cloud servers. They legally have to integrate with a separate storage provider. Now, is the law going to mandate the exact API as well? The likely implementation of this is that, just as every app developer copies every other app developer, when choosing which User Storage Backend to integrate with, they will pick the most popular one, or a near competitor. AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. (Apple-focused developers may choose Apple Cloud; I'd expect Facebook to spin up one if this became law too). Just as you don't get general-purpose OAuth integration so much as "log in with Facebook / Google" buttons. Those are your two choices. Yes, the original intent would be targeted at Google and Microsoft, which currently own both big web apps and big cloud platforms to run them on. I'm not convinced that splitting them vertically would stick; the convergence effects are very strong. So you end up with (choice of two office suites) x (choice of two backend providers), big deal. Is it sufficient that Google Cloud Storage would have a separate stock ticker from Google Cloud Apps? It reminds me of rail privatization and the nonsense of having thin shell companies run the trains while leasing all the rolling stock from a couple of companies and running on tracks owned by exactly one company. It didn't really expand choice and it provided plenty of opportunity for blame deflection.
- stupidcar 6y ago
  Your objections seem to be predicated on the assumption that the attempt to separate storage providers from application providers wouldn't be properly enforced. Yes, obviously if Alphabet can just set up Google Cloud Storage and Google Cloud Apps and continue with business as usual, then this won't work. But what I'm suggesting would be a functioning regulatory regime: An independent authority who classifies cloud providers as utilities, writes regulations specifying standards of interoperability, hears complaints from people and businesses and acts to enforce them. Antitrust regulation that stops collusion between service and application providers, and prevents companies or individuals owning a controlling stake in both. And the major difference I see in contrast to railways is digital infrastructure is not limited in they same way physical infrastructure is. So long as there's only one set of tracks, you can never have a functioning market running trains on them, and it's impossible to build a second set. But while the capital costs of setting up a new data centre are large, they are still within the realm of possibility for many large companies.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    Any such regulatory regime would serve primarily to entrench incumbents by creating vast compliance requirements on newcomers. How's your <pick random> healthcare startup doing? You imagine a benevolent dictator making optimum choices. I think the F35 design/procurement process is a better metaphor.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  With storage we already have "S3-compatible" as a widely implemented and supported standard. Just allow the user to set an arbitrary API endpoint for your regular S3 library and you support a breath of providers

pjc50 6y ago

Think it through: > enforced separation in law between commercial application providers and storage providers. So, if someone writes an app like Google Docs, they can't just store the data opaquely on their own cloud servers. They legally have to integrate with a separate storage provider. Now, is the law going to mandate the exact API as well? The likely implementation of this is that, just as every app developer copies every other app developer, when choosing which User Storage Backend to integrate with, they will pick the most popular one, or a near competitor. AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. (Apple-focused developers may choose Apple Cloud; I'd expect Facebook to spin up one if this became law too). Just as you don't get general-purpose OAuth integration so much as "log in with Facebook / Google" buttons. Those are your two choices. Yes, the original intent would be targeted at Google and Microsoft, which currently own both big web apps and big cloud platforms to run them on. I'm not convinced that splitting them vertically would stick; the convergence effects are very strong. So you end up with (choice of two office suites) x (choice of two backend providers), big deal. Is it sufficient that Google Cloud Storage would have a separate stock ticker from Google Cloud Apps? It reminds me of rail privatization and the nonsense of having thin shell companies run the trains while leasing all the rolling stock from a couple of companies and running on tracks owned by exactly one company. It didn't really expand choice and it provided plenty of opportunity for blame deflection.

stupidcar 6y ago
Your objections seem to be predicated on the assumption that the attempt to separate storage providers from application providers wouldn't be properly enforced. Yes, obviously if Alphabet can just set up Google Cloud Storage and Google Cloud Apps and continue with business as usual, then this won't work. But what I'm suggesting would be a functioning regulatory regime: An independent authority who classifies cloud providers as utilities, writes regulations specifying standards of interoperability, hears complaints from people and businesses and acts to enforce them. Antitrust regulation that stops collusion between service and application providers, and prevents companies or individuals owning a controlling stake in both. And the major difference I see in contrast to railways is digital infrastructure is not limited in they same way physical infrastructure is. So long as there's only one set of tracks, you can never have a functioning market running trains on them, and it's impossible to build a second set. But while the capital costs of setting up a new data centre are large, they are still within the realm of possibility for many large companies.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  Any such regulatory regime would serve primarily to entrench incumbents by creating vast compliance requirements on newcomers. How's your <pick random> healthcare startup doing? You imagine a benevolent dictator making optimum choices. I think the F35 design/procurement process is a better metaphor.
wongarsu 6y ago
With storage we already have "S3-compatible" as a widely implemented and supported standard. Just allow the user to set an arbitrary API endpoint for your regular S3 library and you support a breath of providers