Some Companies Choose Microsoft's Cloud Service Because They're Afraid of Amazon (cnbc.com)
"In the cloud wars, Microsoft has been able to win big business from retailers, largely because companies like Walmart, Kroger, Gap and Target are opting not to write big checks to rival Amazon," reports CNBC:
The more Amazon grows, the more that calculation could start working its way into other industries -- like automotive. In a recent interview with CNBC, Volkswagen's Heiko Huttel, who runs the company's connected car division, said the carmaker chose Microsoft Azure late last year for its "Automotive Cloud" project after considering Amazon Web Services... "If I take a look at all the competitors out there, you see they have capabilities in disrupting you at the customer interface," Hüttel said. "Then you have to carefully choose who is really getting down into the car, where you open up a lot of data to these people, and then you have to carefully choose with whom you are doing business."
Microsoft likes to tout the merits of its cloud technology, but the company is fully aware that taking on AWS, which has a commanding lead in the cloud infrastructure market, isn't just about offering the best services... Microsoft doesn't break out Azure revenue, but analysts at Morgan Stanley estimate that it accounted for almost 10 percent of sales in the latest quarter.
Microsoft likes to tout the merits of its cloud technology, but the company is fully aware that taking on AWS, which has a commanding lead in the cloud infrastructure market, isn't just about offering the best services... Microsoft doesn't break out Azure revenue, but analysts at Morgan Stanley estimate that it accounted for almost 10 percent of sales in the latest quarter.
I run a small business, with about 20 employees. We use Microsoft Azure because for our needs there is virtually no difference in service, I like how Azure more easily integrates with Office 365 apps we use, but there's another reason there too. I have known people who worked at Amazon and hate it. I don't approve of how they treat their employees; that is the antithesis of the culture I am trying to build in my own company.
And to be honest, it's the same with Lyft and Uber. While in some cases a rental car is more expensive than Uber and Lyft, I told my staff I will happily reimburse for a rental car but not for ride-sharing. I think Uber and Lyft both are undermining worker protections while making their revenue by skirting municipal transportation law and Uber's management staff ethics problems is the exact opposite of how i run my company. I'd rather my staff pays more and rents a car or takes a taxi.
While we're small and that's my own choice on things, to be fair these companies do not publicly act like good members of society and at least for some business owners like myself that's now how I want to do things. I'll put my business first and work with a company I don't agree with if that's the only choice that i have, but in today's markets there's rarely so few choices that you have to work with someone you despise.
Microsoft's Azure Cloud offerings can be used Public, Private and true hybrid cloud types. Unlike amazon, which is 99.9% public cloud at the moment. And google, which is 100% public cloud.
Which means that, as your strategy shifts, you can go from Public cloud to hybrid clud to private clud with the same software stack.
Many companies are afraid of cloud technologies in general, and even more so about public clouds, and use this technology out of necesity, rather than desire. Other companies like the cloud, but would be deligthed to get everything inhouse if, for examle, what started up as a small project, grows so large that is cost-effective to do so (think DropBox).
While is true that there are SW layers that let you deploy in a "Cloud stack agnostic" fashion, those add a layer of complexity, appeal to the lowest common denominator, and show a technological lag.
Realisticaly, only Azure and OpenStack* can claim an uniform software stack between public cloud, private cloud and true hybrid cloud...
* There are others, like VMware, but their public cloud offering is marginal at best.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
microsoft = software. amazon = marketing. some companies are smart because amazons IT will never compare to microsofts IT.
Errr, no.
The company I'm consulting with right now has done in-depth studies of AWS, Google, and Azure. They eventually want to have a setup where they can, at will, move their services between any of the big 3 providers.
They've been having all sorts of meetings with reps from all 3 trying to see what they can do, and I've no doubt that eventually they'll be able to do this (easily shift services from provider to provider).
In the most basic terms, this is the way things stand:
First off, in case you didn't know, AWS is IaaS - Infrastructure as a Service while Azure is PaaS - Platform as a Service. (No one knows what the fuck Google is yet.) These two approaches obviously have some serious implications as to how you deploy and manage your stuff, so you'll want to either know what the fuck you're doing or pay someone smart look at your operation and tell you which makes the most sense for you.
AWS is far and away the most flexible and "featurific" of all three. Whatever it is you want to do, AWS can do it. AWS also offers the most bang for the buck, especially at scale. AWS uptime and file persistence is beyond excellent, it practically borders on science-fiction. You could nuke 90% of the world and all of your precious S3 files would still be perfectly safe. Their overall security posture is outstanding. For the moment, AWS is king, end of story.
Azure is getting there, but it's got a long way to go. MS knows this and as a result Azure reps and dev groups will do ANYTHING you ask for. ANYTHING, including happily replicating any AWS features or functionality that you would need in order to get you onboard. And they'll do it on their dime.
For example, MS paid a 3rd-party dev team to build (from our specs) an entire service catalog for us in Azure, in the hopes that we may use them in addition to AWS. It was a piece of the puzzle that we needed and MS paid to have it built. Azure is hungry and motivated. Amazon should keep an eye on their rear-view mirror for Azure.
Google is in last place, and they aren't nearly as feverish about developing their cloud as you would expect them to be. We meet with them and it's always a little too relaxed. I honestly have no idea what they've done or delivered.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Actually it will/did. Until the last couple years, AWS was what was keeping Amazon afloat. Amazon's online retail business was losing money. So Amazon was using profit from AWS to bolster and support their online store. Their online store is finally beginning to make some profit, but the bulk of their operating income continues to come from AWS. It made more money than their store last year, despite having less than 1/8th the revenue.
So it would've been stupid for competing online stores to use AWS. They would've literally been bankrolling their competition. I get what you're saying about picking the best product. It works when the company you're paying keeps financial and operational separation between their divisions (e.g. Samsung Semiconductor giving preferential treatment to Apple over Samsung Mobile because Apple was paying them more). But Amazon was literally using money made by AWS to bankroll the growth of the Amazon store.