
A company offering their own software suite aaS (as a Service) and calling themselves a 'cloud provider' (e.g. salesforce.com) is definitely jumping onto the bandwagon. When recruiting high-level candidates we often do personality testing which is accessed through a web-based applications and we get charged per-use, yet you don't see them calling it 'Testing as a Service'.
Then we get to the big vendors like CSC, Fujitsu, IBM, etc who offer on demand hardware and software, even the entirely ambiguous 'Platform as a Service' layer. They charge on a service model and allow burstable usage. Yet there's one problem, you can't approach one of those companies and get them to (almost) instantly provision a server for you, use it for a few days or weeks (or hours) for a project and then switch them off. With those vendors you are locked into multi-year contracts (often up to 5 years).
They also offer virtualised hardware and infrastructure hosted in their data centres which you access over the internet and instead of dedicated managed services or IaaS they call it 'Private Cloud'.
Ninefold on the other hand have this on the other hand have this on their website (http://ninefold.com/pricing):
Compute Micro 1CPU, 384MB RAM $0.002 hour
Similarly, Amazon have this on their website (http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/):
Small (Default) $0.12 per hour
This is the ability to access servers in a truely elastic and expandable way. Imagine having a large scale project and being able to 'rent out' a virtual server for a short period of time to achieve your goals and only pay for the amount of time you need it? It's accessible over the internet, it's burstable to as much as you need and you don't need to purchase any equipment. This is what "Cloud Computing" is meant to be.
But is this what businesses really need? Many want to completely eliminate the "tech guys" from their business and have that handled all off-site so they can focus on their core business. For the average business Ninefold's solution may be too complex and they would prefer to have less flexibility but have it handled by an external company. So should we abandon the 'cloud' tag, or should truely elastic services be given a different title?
EDIT: On the Australian IT Industry Group someone pointed out ITonCloud (http://www.itoncloud.com/) to me. They offer month-to-month Managed Desktops and Hosted Applications on top of servers and DRaaS. There are SLAs in place with no long-term contracts. Is this an ideal hybrid between flexibility and managed IT?
In order to understand our selves, we must first understand Cloud Virtual Servers Australia. The constantly changing fashionable take on Cloud Virtual Servers Australia demonstrates the depth of the subject. While it is becoming a hot topic for debate, spasmodically it returns to create a new passion amongst those who study its history. The juxtapositioning of Cloud Virtual Servers Australia with fundamental economic, social and political strategic conflict draws criticism from those most reliant on technology, many of whom fail to comprehend the full scope of Cloud Virtual Servers Australia
ReplyDelete