Private cloud discredited, part 1
Summary: Microsoft, a most unlikely ally, has published a white paper that shows private cloud solutions are up to 40 times *less* cost-effective than public cloud alternatives for many companies. It vindicates my prediction that private cloud will be discredited by year-end.
Back in January, I made a controversial prediction that private clouds will be discredited by year end. Now, in the eleventh month of the year, the cavalry has arrived to support my prediction, in the form of a white paper published by a most unlikely ally, Microsoft.
Titled simply The Economics of the Cloud (PDF), the document succinctly sets out the economic factors that make the public cloud model an inexorable inevitability, substantiating my long-held views. It deserves a full reading — don't settle for the overview in the authors' blog post announcing it. Here are some headline numbers that should give pause for thought:
- 80% lower TCO. The combination of large-scale operations, demand pooling and multi-tenancy create enormous economies in public cloud data centers: "a 100,000-server datacenter has an 80% lower total cost of ownership (TCO) compared to a 1,000-server datacenter."
- 40-fold cost reduction for SMBs. "For organizations with a very small installed base of servers (<100), private clouds are prohibitively expensive compared to public cloud."
- 10-fold cost reduction for larger enterprises. "For large agencies with an installed base of approximately 1,000 servers, private clouds are feasible but come with a significant cost premium of about 10 times the cost of a public cloud for the same unit of service."
Since I know there's a subset of ZDNet readers who will leap into Talkback to cry wolf on cloud security without bothering to read either the rest of this blog post or even looking at the white paper, here's what it has to say on that particular canard:
"Large commercial cloud providers are often better able to bring deep expertise to bear on this problem than a typical corporate IT department, thus actually making cloud systems more secure and reliable ... Many security experts argue there are no fundamental reasons why public clouds would be less secure; in fact, they are likely to become more secure than on premises due to the intense scrutiny providers must place on security and the deep level of expertise they are developing."
That paragraph alludes to one of the key factors that I've been highlighting in my recent evangelism of the cloud model, the economies of scale for collective scrutiny and innovation. Amazingly, the document reaches its conclusions without adding in the additional economic benefits of this factor, which surely must deliver a knock-out blow to the private cloud concept. The collective feedback and testing from a diversified customer base enhances not only the security of a public cloud infrastructure but also informs and directs its evolution at a far more rapid pace than any private cloud will allow. There's a virtuous cycle here, of course, in that public clouds are already more cost-effective as platforms for innovation, so that there is going to more innovation happening here than on private clouds anyway. That innovation will help to further accelerate the evolution of public clouds, thus amplifying their economic advantage more rapidly and to a greater extent than even Microsoft's strategy team have envisaged.
The document ends by trumpeting Microsoft's own commitment to the cloud, and in particular its work with products such as Office 365, Bing and Azure, which is fair enough. But I have to mention that it also exposes a huge, gaping hole in Microsoft's product line in the SMB market. As I highlighted earlier, the document plainly implies that any SMB would be crazy to factor on-premise or private cloud into their future strategy when these options are going to cost up to 40x more than public cloud alternatives. That finding casts a dark pall over Microsoft Dynamics, a product line that has spent the past decade running away from the cloud (that may sound like a strong verdict, but believe me, I've witnessed the whole, sorry saga). If Microsoft really wants to be 'all-in the cloud' as Steve Ballmer has been saying, then it's going to have to figure out a way to get Dynamics there before its SMB installed base starts deserting it in droves. Acquisition of an existing cloud solution is probably its only viable option.
Some readers may be wondering why I wrote 'part 1' in the title of this post. It's because I fully expect to be able to write a 'part 2' before long. The economic case to discredit private cloud has now been made. The other shoe still waiting to drop is a complete rebuttal of all the arguments over security, reliability and control that are made to justify private cloud initiatives. The dreadful fragility and brittleness of the private cloud model has yet to be fully exposed, although I have done my best to alert people of its existence. I am confident that evidence will surface soon and then we will be able to drive the remaining nails into the coffin of private cloud.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Latency
Well, given that with a public cloud, for most cases, you would be more
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
That's why the previous incarnations of the 'public cloud' idea, the so-called "thin clients" (and before that 'smart terminals') had lost to PCs with local apps in corporate environments, even though the same economies of scale touted here applied equally well in those cases. Unless you add all the costs, including human productivity, you will only end up with wishful conjectures.
Come on, thin client has nothing to do with private cloud vs public cloud.
Thin client failure is relevant data point
a) The same type of economy of scale applies as the public cloud (the same goes to mainframe+smart terminal approach)
b) They failed because of the latency problem (making human operators less productive)
c) Unlike public cloud, thin clients didn't have privacy issues (they were usually hosted in the same company), hence the public cloud has more downsides (higher latency, privacy)
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
Not to mention that, with private infrastructure, you can tune response time, security, and bandwidth to be precisely what you need it to be, instead of hoping and praying that the public infrastructure you share with billions will be reliable, available, scalable and manageable enough to meet your business needs.
SMBs, sure. Other than that, it isn't just the cost of the service that you are weighing. It's your reputation, your viability, your very existence that you are placing this bet on.
It's too bad that so many people have such a narrow view of the realities of business and even IT itself, and are so ill-equipped to make those life and death decisions. But if everybody could do it, then we wouldn't be having this debate, would we? And we wouldn't need the suits with the big salaries, who often are better equipped to make these decisions that someone sitting in their cubicle and spouting their personal opinions while watching out of the corner of their eye for their boss so they can hit the boss-key.
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
More intelligence at the edge give more rich and responsive user interfaces, consuming less bandwidht and Cloud resources.
TCO is lower for the owner not for the client
Now that is the most beat-around-the-bush offhand argument I have heard
Did I say that ?
And, again, most can not afford to have the people 24x7 need to make it
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
For the limited case, that the applications are ONLY for internal users in
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
Compelling indeed. Tell that to a bank with 500+ branches all running legacy time-tested business critical apps and you'll have the "don't call us we'll call you" treatment :-)
But building a private cloud (with mostly existing hardware) that can run their legacy environment in flexible manner and keeping the existing, working networking infrastructure (also private) it's a whole another story.
You know, it's about the right tool : choosing the right one for the job at hand. Trying to prematurely proclaim victory in non-existent religious wars (private cloud is dead, only public cloud is the right choice) is immature, at least.
And the crushing argument ("we've found a Microsoft marketing white paper claiming that own products are the best and we've seen the light") is funny.
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
Say what?
Get real....
RE: Private cloud discredited, part 1
Also I am not keen on the idea of completely dumb terminals. Anything that disrupts my local Internet connection has the ability to shut down my business. Unlike other outsourced resources, this state of affairs does not have to exist. Most SMB can't afford to have a billion dollar power plant supplying their electricity but an offline productivity package that syncs back up when the Internet is back is not an unreasonable request.
There has been little progress on a unified support package. Cloud vendors are pushing clouds and hoping consumers don't "look behind the curtain". Support is expensive and if Google goes down for the entire afternoon, what recourse do their corporate clients have?
Exit strategies are another pinch point few people have wanted to talk about. Unless cloud computing is somehow a socialistic "can't ever fail and can't ever get sold" business consumers have a valid risk in cloud services. Just because Microsoft doesn't go out of business doesn't mean they won't sell off individual product offerings. What happens to the companies relying on those services. Google decides data storage is really expensive and they have a buyer for their data, what happens to the contracts between companies and Google? What if the company purchasing the data storage services of Google doesn't have the same TOS?
Just recently Ask.com dumped their blog services. At the last minute another company went in an took it over but still what are the TOS for the new company? If you had an Ask.com blog how does it affect you? Do you have any choices in the matter? Do you have to resort to lawsuits?
Wow, great way to pretend that more secure is not more secure. Also, quit
And, this is NOT about dumb terminals, you can run the application that connects to the cloud as a locally installed application, or as a web application, regardless of whether you are using private or public cloud. AJAX / HTML5 means that maintaining locally installed applications is getting more stupid every day, especially if you customers are the main people using the application.