Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
Summary: A step backwards, at least for personal computing, one observer fumes.
A lot of people are excited about the cloud, but not Josh Fruhlinger, as he rants over at Huffington Post. A step backwards, he fumes, particularly as it relates to personal computing.
Security issues are one thing, but also consider the fact that going to the cloud also means going to the lowest common denominator in computing:
"What if your new computer has a faster processor and killer GPU that could make use of newer applications and workflows? Is logging into your 'old' cloud really pulling the most of of your new equipment's cycles? Ever notice, for instance, how your cable provider's set-top-box looks like it does a lot, but it's always hampered by clunky software that it runs on the cloud? Is that really the lowest-common-denominator performance we want out of our equipment?"
In his earlier days as a student working with a hiccuping campus computer system, Fruhlinger learned to back up everything he did on a floppy disk (anyone remember them?). "We've been here before, and I don't want to go back," he sniffs.
Anyone agree that we are taking a step backwards from a time when everything was available right off the drives of our own machines?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
Another dumbass question ...
I do not want the tiresome 'M$ v MAC' flamebait, or the 'the network terminal is dead pronouncement'. And I don't want to hear that M$ recommends cloud computing or Steve Jobs recommends MAC's. I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD!
As to Fruhlinger's expectation that his PC will be more powerful than the hardware used in cloud datacentres, well ... it will be when he does something trivial (like post to ZDNET) and it won't (when he requests a simulation that would have taken a week on a consumer PC).
That will be the case ... if we ever discuss and solve the problems of architecture, vendor lock-in/costing , privacy and security ... instead of asking dumbass questions.
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
1. The ISP's in my area have outages at least once a day, a PC from 10 years ago is more reliable than that. Note: I am in the Boston metropolitan area, which should have good service.
2. I don't want to rely on a cloud vendor, worse yet I do business with some of the cloud vendors and I sure don't trust storing information from one vendor on another vendors cloud.
3. Over the years I have used a number of on-line services, and been burned when they either close down or merge with another player.
4. Finally, cloud security is still a joke. A PC with no virus proctection is more secure than many clouds.
Why the return to the glass palace
Then came microprocessors. These dramatically drove down the cost of CPU cycles, turning the economics of computing on its head. With microprocessors, it was cheaper to decentralize the hardware <i>and the data</i>, processing the data at remote locations (where the worker bees were) and submitting only crunched results via telecom to "headquarters."
The whole thing with "client/server" was about minimizing telecommunications expense in a world where CPUs and small storage devices were cheap.
The one ugly expense that was still there, and still pretty much centralized, were the people costs associated with keeping all this stuff running. Given their 'druthers, the IT people would still have preferred to keep the hardware and the storage in a centralized place. That was less about some Machiavellian notion of "control" than it was about making it easy for a small group of "priests" to minister to the hardware (and increasingly, the software).
Now comes Act III, in which communications bandwidth becomes so cheap that the centralized/decentralized equation flips again, this time favoring big honking machines in giant data centers presided over by a small group of very highly skilled people. In this world, the "worker bees" lose custody of the data because moving it around is practically free. So now it goes into "the cloud," which is a way to avoid saying, "a big centralized data center in a glass palace."
Some people observing this have concluded that this also means thin clients on the worker bee desktops. It probably should, but not yet. Bandwidth is cheap, but not so cheap that we can ship high-def video from The Cloud to every desktop on the planet.
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
Dream on ...
The telcos are already salivating at the prospect of being able to add niggling frustrations so that they can then bypass them for another fee.
They drool at the prospect of selling you a service enhancement then charging a larger rental for its use, and a per occasion usage fee whenever you exceed some petty limit.
And the reality will be that nobody enjoys the all singing, all dancing experience, but everybody wants it.
definitely
You are at the mercy of the guy at the end of the wire.
Not for me!
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
put all my personal data on the cloud right for the taking.
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
You need to be aware that the cloud will fail. If it's not virii, your software, your hardware, your router, your ISP, net traffic, it'll be the cloud vendor. This is not really a problem if you plan for it or don't use the cloud for mission critical applications.
To use an example that has complex interactions take World of Warcraft. Yes a lot of work is done on the desktop, but the game needs the cloud to function so Blizzard needs to have servers running 24/7 for its 13 million subscribers. They have the money (subscriptions), the experience and the technology, but no-one really expects that the servers will be error free with no connection problems 24/7. I think their service is great - especially since they are providing far more than the database lookups that most "cloud" software is actually displaying - but in the end it's a game and if I can't get on at a particular time, it may be a pain. but it's not the end of the world or my business. The same can't be said if you rely entirely on cloud services for your business or critical activities.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket is a very old saying, but that's because it's good advice ;-)
Cloud is absolutely useless
- in major disasters. You lose the power nodes in your area, then you lose the transmission nodes too. You may lose the physical sites for the transmission nodes. Local computing, with local backup generators, will allow local use. As long as you're not buried by a pyroclastic cloud, vaporized by a terrorist nuke, had the building shaken into rubble, or been swept away by storm surge or tsunami, you can still operate on location without needed constant connection to the Cloud.
- if you want to minimize attack routes to your data or applications. There are no cloud solutions that won't increase the vulnerability of your data to interception or corruption. If you have any connection to the internet, you will be hacked someday. But if all your data and applications are ON the internet, that day is coming sooner than later.
- for maintaining your actual in-house network and workstations. SOMEBODY has to be either on site, or readily available to keep your stuff connected and working in the cloud. If you have more than a dozen nodal points in your facility, you're going to need on-site I.T. people. So where's the cloud benefit then?
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
"Time-shift your TV shows". This is a pre-cloud concept. If all TV is available on-demand, there is no scheduled time from which to shift it.
There certainly is enough bandwidth for everyone in the world to watch a different show at the same time. One problem is that so much bandwidth (terrestrial, sattelite, OTA) is currently dedicated to broadcasting. Re-purpose that bandwidth for on-demand use to see amazing flexibility. However, the latter will happen very slowly since the industry is driven by the needs/fears of the advertiser; the desires/preferences of the consumer come a very distant third or fourth.
Keith
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
NO THANKS.
This "cloud" thing isn't new. There were these things called "servers" before this "cloud" buzzword came to be. Maybe you've heard of them? The difference then was that you had some measure of control over your data and the protection of that data.
A "cloud" simply means that you don't.
Anyone who falls for this "cloud" business deserves what they get. Just ask Sony. How's their cloud doing? Oh, and Amazon. That seems to be working out pretty well for them. And now Microsoft is betting the farm on "the cloud". That should tell you something. ;)
RE: Not everyone loves the cloud: here's why
It's a bubble waiting to burst. In IT, a "buzzword" is just like a fad... it's always temporary and is almost always created by people trying to make a quick buck on something that is unsustainable.
Besides, we all know it's really about "Web 2.0" anyway, right kids? ;)