Comments on: Dissecting SearchDataCenter.com’s “Don’t buy cloud computing hype” post

By: Michael Sheehan

Michael Sheehan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:56 +0000

@Chuck,
Thanks for the response. True, the auditing and compliance portion probably needs to go much further. For the short term, many providers will be self-auditing until the standards are truly brought up to speed and the independent auditors fully understand what is involved. It’s a great extension for their business model actually and I think they will reap the benefits of being able to fully audit “the Cloud.” SAS70 (an acronym that you mentioned) is just an example. GoGrid is one of the few (only?) Cloud providers that can say that.

In terms of your other points:
1) I don’t fully agree with that statement that the business model is sustainable only for someone selling excess capacity. It is a shift in many different models. Who would have thought that SaaS would be so wildly successful? The billing models fit better to a time where budgets are tight. Data Centers could convert over to providing Cloud services (smaller footprint, less power, etc.). However, doing ONLY Cloud might be a bit dangerous, so I somewhat agree. Diversification is critical. This is part of the reason why we offer traditional datacenter (ServePath/ColoServe) services as well as CloudCenter (GoGrid) services. User then have the ability to pick and choose their solution, one or the other or both together (Cloud Connect).
1a) I don’t think this is any different than traditional hosting. You have to, as a provider, be ready to scale one way or another. Planning, whether traditional or cloud, needs to take place, so I don’t really understand the concern as being only with the Cloud.

Sorry, but I still do view SaaS as a Cloud segment (Cloud Applications). However, I do think that there are some SaaS providers that don’t quite fit in. Cloud Computing, in general, is a term that is very broad and general, but we are seeing the fine-tuning taking place.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
-Michael

By: Michael Sheehan

Michael Sheehan — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:28:30 +0000

@pkysoft

It is competitive when you factor in the free inbound transfer.

-Michael

By: chuck goolsbee

chuck goolsbee — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:57:52 +0000

I could be convinced to alter my views on the compliance issue, but only when I hear it straight from an auditor (as opposed to a cloud provider.) Additionally Statement of Accounting Standards (SAS70) is not the right compliance standard to hold up as an example, as it is the least relevant, and least strict from an infrastructure perspective.

What then about my other points?

1. The business model of “cloud provider” is only sustainable for somebody selling excess capacity. It is unlikely that a “cloud provider” can succeed in a stand-alone fashion.

1a: What happens when that excess capacity is needed for its primary purpose? Or, what happens when the application running in the cloud succeeds far beyond the cloud’s ability to support it? How can you financially survive the former event as a user, or the latter event as a cloud provider?

I’m glad we are in agreement on the issue of terminology. ASP/SaaS!=Cloud. “Cloud” is really a lower-level concept independent of the application layer. Perhaps I’m being pedantic but I find it irritating when the terminology is used interchangeably.

–chuck

By: pkysoft

pkysoft — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:36:32 +0000

godgrid’s outbound price too expansive for the pay-you-go payment user.