Slashdot Mirror
Google, Microsoft Escalate Data Center Battle
miller60 writes "The race by Microsoft and Google to build next-generation data centers is intensifying. On Thursday Microsoft announced a $550 million San Antonio project, only to have Google confirm plans for a $600 million site in North Carolina. It appears Google may just be getting started, as it is apparently planning two more enormous data centers in South Carolina, which may cost another $950 million. These 'Death Star' data centers are emerging as a key assets in the competitive struggle between Microsoft and Google, which have both scaled up their spending (as previously discussed on Slashdot). Some pundits, like PBS' Robert X. Cringley, say the scope and cost of these projects reflect the immense scale of Google's ambitions."
Microsoft desperately needs new datacenters because their search index size is in need of an increased capacity. Google with its 100000++ computers is able to record every single click-through, record your chats, store your email for posterity (even after you delete it), store every single search query for several years, record your online transactions etc. not only on its own sites but other sites like slashdot for example. This has helped improve their search result and provide targetted ads among other things. Microsoft's search now algorithmcally matches Google. It now does a great job for most queries, but for some esotoric queries its small index size is very apparent.
Early signs of this beyond the obvious google applications that require web access, are aggressive attempts by Microsoft to "activate" everything online. You are going to increasingly need network connections to run standard applications.
I don't like that myself, since it hurts reliability and autonomy in computing.
If all else is equal, a centralized approach is less reliable than a distributed approach.
But seldom is all else equal.
A distributed approach to software and information systems often has catastrophic failure as part of the mix. A well-designed central approach, with built-in redundancy and a qualified backup scheme can usually outperform the poorly administered "edge" systems run by end users.
And, in this space, the economies of scale rapidly factor in, making a better experience cheaper, as well. Sorry you don't trust the hosting providers, but it isn't always that way...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
From my point of view, there'll be no single winner, but technology will revert once again, and the term 'computer' will mean what it meant in the 60s and the 70s. Provided enough bandwidth, stability and solutions like roof-top server rooms - Google [or Microsoft, although it's hard for me to believe it] has good chances to build such a network with powerful data centers and relatively dumb clients. Again, the task is not easy, and there is 1001 reasons why, but defying laws of physics isn't among them, and the Almighty Buck will surely help solve all of them sooner or later.
If we're really lucky Google and Microsoft will hugely over-investWhy? Google's desperately trying to diversify its income sources, why don't you suppose that they'll offer hosting services because they plan to?
So now we know why the sky is always black with pollution in sci-fi movies... we cover the earth with multi-gigawatt eating data centers.
Since electricity is a continent-wide commodity you can guess whose electric bill will be going up as they buy up all the watts just so they can store every little detail about your life.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
If you avoid code sharing and community reviews for long, you end up with a sub-par, brittle, expensive and proprietary solution that costs more than it earns. You ignore the great unwashed hackish masses at your own grave peril, O Googole.
"Piter, too, is dead."
True, but a) you have no idea of knowing just how resilient their systems are, or how reliable their backup scheme is... until it fails, of course; b) online apps require an internet connection; and c) trust.
The need for an internet link to the central site is still a pretty significant failure point, especially if we're talking "end user" systems which are probably connected via a single phone or cable line.
Trust is probably the most significant problem. Not just that the company that stores your files will do so in a secure and discreet manner, but also that they'll behave in an ethical way. Once you become reliant on a service, they can start extorting you for access to your own documents. They can increase their fees, and refuse to release the documents to you until you pay them a severance fee. They can then release them in a secret proprietary format which only their systems can accurately interpret. All of these things you could sue for... but do you really want to be suing a monster corporation (or even a small, nasty one) to get your own documents back?
And what happens when your favourite do-no-evil corp is bought out or sells their central application services to a do-nothing-but-evil megacorp? Quickly grab a copy of all your stuff and then delete it? How do you know it's actually been deleted?
</doomsday>
I don't think it's a violation just as long as they keep it in house. Which means they also have to support it in house. Not everyone is willing to keep on retainer kernel developers for their employee desktop computers.
Google is changing the way people do business on the internet. They are also going to change the shape of the internet. Much of this very likely will follow any of a number of historical industrial patterns which eventually lead to severe regulations and a severe restriction of who is allowed to post information on the internet and what kind of information you are allowed to receive on the internet. It is not necessarily true that the regulators will dictate the limits of content but simply reinforce the idea of limiting content.
Examine the history of Television and Radio to see how they followed this path. I don't think anyone really considers the internet that much different. At least they can get it to fit the model. With the exception of the social webs like facebook, youtube, and myspace, most of the internet consists of content delivery and a large portion of that content (by some) is seen not as written words but media in forms of video/audio material. And with the highly publicized problems that these social networks are having (where everyone is a pedophile or worse) it's ripe for all the sheeple to cry out that they need the guberment to protect them from their neighbors. And "bang!". Just like that you have a completely "owned" environment where no one can actually do anything, everything costs money, and the sheeple are happy again.
Is anyone else a bit weirded out by the massive incentives the local governments have offered. I know this is nothing new, and the locals hope that these will spur further high-tech development in the area, but let's examine these cases:
San Antonio (Microsoft): No property taxes for 10 years. A $5.2 mil grant from the CPS Energy economic development fund to pay for the electrical infrastructure to build the site.
South Carolina (Google): No property taxes for 30 years (essentially, for the life of the site). The 150-acre site was granted to them, and the state government has granted about $5 mil, too. Google has been incentivized to the tune of about $100 million.
Some of the structural construction will undoubtedly be done by locals. The technical work of building the data center (installing servers, wiring everything together) is probably outside of a local construction company's expertise. The real bulk of all those hundreds of millions of dollars goes to purchasing the actual computer equipment, none of which is local. A handful of the most-well-educated locals could be employees, but most employees will be transplanted. In less than 10 years, both sites will probably be obsolete (or, worse, axed as excess capacity). As the article on Google's site notes, the obscene incentives equate to "a $500,000 sweetener for each of the 200 jobs Google will create."
For half a million dollars, I'm sure the local economy could get more bang for its buck than just one Google employee. What exactly are these local governments getting in return for their obsequiousness and prostration?
Funny how lots of other software companies manage it. Google has a lot of smart people, who get paid to code, it's not like it's just some guys who do it for fun in their spare time. Presumably they don't mess with the kernel or anything, and can just upgrade the same as everyone else, maybe with minor tweaks to their own code. And I seriously doubt Google is making less money than it spends, considering it's building $1,500,000,000 worth of data centres. Would you really like it if spammers could view Google's source to learn more about PageRank and scwew awound with your search results?
which is totally what she said