Doctorow On What Cloud Computing Is Really For

Diabolus Advocatus alerts us to an article Cory Doctorow has up on guardian.co.uk, addressing what cloud computing really means for the average consumer: "The tech press is full of people who want to tell you how completely awesome life is going to be when everything moves to 'the cloud' — that is, when all your important storage, processing and other needs are handled by vast, professionally managed data-centers. Here's something you won't see mentioned, though: the main attraction of the cloud to investors and entrepreneurs is the idea of making money from you, on a recurring, perpetual basis, for something you currently get for a flat rate or for free without having to give up the money or privacy that cloud companies hope to leverage into fortunes."

Comments

I'm not sure I understand

[jasonmicron]

I've seen "Cloud Computing" around as a buzzword but I never really cared to investigate what it really was.

I'm assuming it is essentially paying a data center to host my data from my home system? Why in the hell would I even WANT to do that?

Or did I completely miss the bus? Something I missed?

Re:I'm not sure I understand

[MathFox]

Or did I completely miss the bus? Something I missed?

You missed the lock in model of being forced to work with the applications that the cloud provider supports.

Re:I'm not sure I understand

[slim]

It's something you don't need to care about, unless you're hosting a service that needs to scale. Then "The Cloud" is an unspecified bunch of computers out there, and your application is spread across them in such a way that if some of them break, things are redistributed across the rest.

This is what Google, Amazon etc. use to provide their search app, their shop, and so on.

The big, newish, thing, is that now you don't need to be as big as Amazon or Google to host your app on a cloud platform, since they'll sell you space on theirs.

As a consumer, you needn't care how the web apps you use are hosted. Just be happy that they're there and they don't slow down just because a million other people have signed up.

As the guy running the site, though, it's huge. If you build an app right, on one of these cloud platforms, you can start very cheap indeed, only paying for what you need, and scale instantly (or even automatically) as demand increases.

You're an online shop selling Christmas goods? Host it on a cloud, rein it right back to a low capacity service ten months a year, then crank it up to hundreds of servers in November and December, and back again in January.

Hope this explains it.

Re:I'm not sure I understand

[Insanity Defense]

Or did I completely miss the bus? Something I missed? You missed the lock in model of being forced to work with the applications that the cloud provider supports.

Or did I completely miss the bus? Something I missed?

You missed the lock in model of being forced to work with the applications that the cloud provider supports.

Also the bit where your data is locked into whatever file formats the cloud provider has and you will have difficulty maintaining your own back ups and migrating to a different provider if the current one is inadequate or fails.

Imagine the Outer Limits Control Voice telling you how they control your data and how you use it.

There is nothing wrong with your computer.

Do not attempt to install software. We are controlling what you may use and do.

We will control the file formats.

We will control the data.

We control all that you may do with your computer and your data.

Experience the awe and majesty of paying us for the use of your own data in ways that we strictly control and limit.

Re:I'm not sure I understand

[nacturation]

Let's say you were starting up a new tech site and your website was going to be the greatest thing since Slashdot. So you plan on having Slashdot-levels of traffic. You do a bit of planning and expect that you'd need about 8 front-end web servers to distribute the load, 4 beefy database servers, and a couple more for handling your email, DNS, backups, and whatever else. So let's say that adds up to 16 servers. And (hand waving here) let's say that total hardware cost comes to $50,000.

To host those servers, you're going to need a data center. So you'll need to find a provider and pay them roughly $1000/month for a rack to put them in. On top of that, you'll need to pay for bandwidth which let's say is another $1000/month. You'll also need a system administrator to manage all those servers. So your first year cost is:

$50,000 - servers
$12,000 - rack space
$12,000 - bandwidth
$100,000 - administrator
------
$174,000 - total

That's non-cloud computing. Cloud computing comes in several different models. The first is utility computing. Instead of shelling out $50,000 for all that hardware, why not pay a provider like Amazon for their EC2 systems? You're essentially paying on an hourly basis for the use of their servers, but you can scale up or down easily to account for traffic spikes and dips. If you only need 8 web servers and 4 database servers during peak times, you can perhaps save a bit. And if you really only need 2 database and 2 web servers, then you haven't paid for a lot of hardware that's collecting dust. If you really do need all that power all of the time, then you'd pay Amazon more in hourly fees than it would cost to buy it all yourself.

The second way is a hybrid. You still have all your own servers, but you use services from various companies to implement your system. Amazon's S3 storage for example. You continue to host the main hardware, but you rely on these external services for additional functionality. In the case of Amazon S3, it gives you access to very high speed static file hosting and essentially unlimited amounts of storage at a fairly reasonable cost.

The last way is going all cloud. Your services run on a provider's infrastructure and you have no concept of a physical server. If your site receives more traffic, the provider automagically creates more instances of your service to handle the load. This is the Google App Engine and Microsoft Azure models. All the data is stored and managed by the provider. It's still your data and all these providers have confidentiality clauses. Barring a court order, nobody will (or, more accurately, should) be snooping into the data they store on your behalf. You don't need to worry about firewalls, security patching, hardware issues at 3 in the morning, and so on.

I've simplified this down to a few different models... there are many other possibilities as well, such as all cloud with a few dedicated colo servers to handle specific tasks, but that's the nutshell.

Think of it like getting a safety deposit box at a bank. You could build your own safe, professionally install it, hire security guards to watch it around the clock, have alarms and monitoring systems, etc. If you need enough storage such that the bank would charge you through the nose to use their safety deposit boxes, then building your own makes sense. For smaller scale operations, you're better off paying the bank to use their safety deposit box. They're experts at managing security risk, and you can be pretty confident that they'll do a good job.

The Profit

[TheBilgeRat]

I guess one more reason to read the EULA before committing your website/app/etc to the cloud. Not a shocker that selling your personal info is a much anticipated profit stream.

Misunderstanding

[oahazmatt]

Right now, the biggest issue I see facing Cloud Computing isn't the cost but the blatant misunderstanding that some people have as to what Cloud Computing actually is. I work with so many people who have absolutely no idea when it comes to Cloud Computing. One co-worker told me he was setting up a new website for himself. I asked him what hosting provider he was using. His response: "None. I'm putting on the cloud." Another co-worker saw me looking at a screenshot of someone who had over 20 virtual machines running on his PC at one time. He looked at me and said "That had to be done on the cloud."

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of Cloud Computing. If providers can make money of off this new platform, more power to them. I just wish we could establish a large billboard that explained in detail what it was.

Re:Heads in the clouds

[TooMuchToDo]

Good article, I coundn't find anything to argue with in it. I never did understand why the concept of "cloud computing" was attractive to anyone. I wish someone would explain it to me.

No upfront investment. Example: Amazon invests huge amounts of cash in infrastructure so they can handle transactions at peak times (Christmas). The rest of the year that gear sits idle. You get to use it for your app at a per hour rate, and it will scale quickly if your app/site/whatever are a hit. Have an idea but not the gear to demo it? You use the cloud, and your only cost is the rental time fee. Have a hugely popular site already? You use dedicated equipment in your own space.

Small Monthly Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Cloud computing works on the "frog in a pot" principle. Slowly increase the temperature, and the frog doesn't know it's being boiled alive.

-Don't worry about backup, let us do it, for a small monthly fee.

-Don't store your data locally, let us do it, for a small monthly fee.

-Don't worry about software, let us provide it for you, for a small monthly fee.

-Don't worry about a PC, let us provide one for you, for a small monthly fee.

Think it won't work? It already does. Look at your cellphone. You don't own it, you don't own any of it's data, you rent it, for a couple of small monthly fees, and some small "pay per use" fees.

Lets look at the XBOX model. You "own" the hardware, but ultimately, Microsoft gets to decide what you can do with it.

XBox live is your "small monthly fee". Expect the next version of XBox to be a rental only agreement.

You get all the "convenience", but none of the service guarantees, security, responsibility, etc.

They get all your "small monthly fees", and all your personal data.

Take a look at the advantage.

[Drakin020]

for something you currently get for a flat rate or for free without having to give up the money or privacy that cloud companies hope to leverage into fortunes."

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people don't want to have to worry about upgrades, viruses, slowness, etc... If someone out there can provide computer access to users with the protection from Viruses, hardware becoming obsolete, and other general hardware problems, what's the problem in that?

This could work well for the elderly who just don't want to deal with all the crap that comes with owning a computer.

Re:Heads in the clouds

[Attila Dimedici]

I never did understand why the concept of "cloud computing" was attractive to anyone. I wish someone would explain it to me.

You mean you couldn't understand why all of the big players in software and computer services thought that "cloud computing" was great? You couldn't understand why they wanted people to migrate to a system where they get to charge people a recurring fee to provide services people were getting for a one time fee? What is so hard to understand about why people find "cloud computing " attractive? They get to make more money.
Oh, you couldn't understand why the people who were being asked to pay that money found "cloud computing" attractive? Oh that's easy, it was the latest fad and all the "cool kids" were going to be doing it. If you weren't into "cloud computing", you just weren't with it.

Cloud relies

[tepples]

Why buy a $1500 computer when you can get 100x more power from a $100 thin client and $20 a month. (or what ever)

Because ISPs in the United States with a wireless last mile (3G or satellite) still charge on the order of $60 per month for on the order of 5 GB per month. Or because I want to do something and see the result happen without a second of lag.

Every time you use Google you are using the cloud.

Which is fine because I am using a service through the network to search for other resources that can be used through the network, and the resources don't need instant response. But at times, I might have no connection to the network, or I might have such a slow connection (either low bandwidth or high latency) that interacting becomes unbearable.

Re:Cloud relies

[commodore64_love]

>>>(aka "terminal" in 70s [and also 80s] technology)

This is the man reason why I'm against cloud computing. I remember having to do college work via the central computer, and you could only do it with a terminal, which meant you had to be online. It was a major hassle. Having the software on our OWN machines freed us to work anytime, anywhere without needing a connection. Cloud computing strikes me as a step backwards to a darker time.

Clouds are not solid enough

[tecnico.hitos]

It's the latest take on thin-client to server connectivity. Why buy a $1500 computer when you can get 100x more power from a $100 thin client and $20 a month. (or what ever)

The main difference this time is a web browser typically becomes your thin client and the server is actually a massively parallel cluster of servers. Every time you use Google you are using the cloud.

The problem is that you become dependent of the cloud. If your network fails or the server overloads, the $100 client/netbook/whatever will not be able to handle the same tasks.

It's good to have local devices capable of accomplishing the tasks you need. Cloud computing have its advantages, but isn't as reliable.