Live data from Hacker News

Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

techcrunch.com

121–130 of 256 posts

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#121
post #68
post #9

Am I the only one that thinks IBM's acquisition of Softlayer did more to help Amazon than it did to help IBM? (or, more specifically, their mishandling of the acquisition) Cloud isn't the big market, traditional hosting is. But cloud continues to grow. I thought the idea behind the Softlayer acquisition was going to be to try to funnel the much larger group of people who aren't ALL IN on cloud into some hybrid/cloud…

"cloud isn't the big market" sorry lost me there

I'm not sure if you're up for not being dismissive, but I'd honestly like to be corrected if I'm wrong.

When I think of this I first think of Digital Realty Trust (DLR), Global Switch, China Telecom, AT&T, Equinix, NTT, Tata Communication, China Unicom, Telefonica, ....

True, a lot of their customers must be cloud vendors. At one point, I'm pretty sure AWS was a customer of Equinix in some parts of the world (and they might still be). But still, who's bigger? AWS or the folks who consider AWS another (although no doubt important) client?

No one is giving out detailed data, but DLR has 200+ data centers and 30+ million sqft of space. And while it is probably the biggest, they're just one of many. And I think they and their customers are mostly into more traditional hosting.

Then you have more direct to consumer companies that run their own data centers. OVH, Hetzner, Softlayer, PhoenixNap, HE, Rackspace, ... Worldwide? Hundreds of these. Maybe thousands.

Gartner once wrote that AWS was 10x larger than the next 14 cloud providers combined (2015). I don't know how true that was (or still is). But if "the cloud" is essentially "AWS", then it's probably safe to assume that most of DLR or OVH's or XYZ should be counted as "traditional" and not "cloud".

If it's mostly just AWS + 14 other _much_ smaller companies vs thousands of companies worlwide, some of which are bigger than AWS, many of which are in the same ballpark, is the cloud even 1% of hosting market?

(I worked at a large bank, we had our own datacenters (not buildings, not cages, but floors). I don't know if we actually owned everything though. If we did, this would probably add up to be quite a lot. If we didn't, then this capacity is already included in the above providers).

Now, if you're talking about where the money is at, I have no preconceptions. You might be right. There's no doubt cloud margins are higher.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#122
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"cloud isn't the big market" sorry lost me there

Not a native speaker, but it seems to me that they are not saying that cloud is not a big market, but that the cloud is not THE big market, since THE big market is something else (bare metal?).

That's exactly what I was saying. Thank you. I think I'd agree that it's the fastest growing market. And maybe the one with the highest profit margins though.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#123

The reason for IBM's failure is pretty obvious. Their old school bare-metal servers at Softlayer are a good value, but the need for bare metal is decreasing with IO improvements like SR-IOV and real hardware level virtualization (ex HVM on AWS). I've also heard IBM is running that division into the ground. Their cloud offering sucks. Last time I was curious, I couldn't even figure out how much my server would cost. T…

Completely anecdotally speaking - at a few enterprises, convincing customers to make use of GCP has been an uphill battle. I notice deep misgivings regarding the support timescales, and even for supported products, poor support in general (ymmv+++). GCP do have a clause in their SLA/T&C where they promise a 1 year notice in the case of any services they plan to deprecate, but that hasn't helped assuage fears - they w…

> 1 year notice

makes me laugh that they think 1 year notice is enough. should be at least 5 for my business to properly consider it.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#124

I don't understand why Google doesn't woo silicon valley startups more aggressively. Gcloud is actually a pretty solid service, far more usable at varying levels of technical expertise. A lot of nice integrated tools for high end users (EC2/kub8/cloud console/etc) that gives AWS a good run for their money, and (gcloud web browser, web console, gcutils) for devs not that familiar with cloud tools that are significantl…

> ...and churned out the occasional semi-corn founder who advocates for a gcloud stack...

I got the impression that’s the deal with Pivotal. Some ex-Googlers recreated Borg as BOSH (Borg++). Since then they push GCP as their premier public cloud integration despite most customers being in AWS. Their docs on AWS integration blow chunks, and they took their sweet time delivering a (broken) version of PKS for AWS.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#125
Who even would use Google Cloud seriously? They have a shitty history of maintaining products after depreciation. No, 1 year is not enough. Once I've invested in your platform, minimum of 5-7 years guarantee is mandatory.

Too many horror stories to even think about moving there.

This is coming from an org which spends 10M/Yr on Azure/AWS.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#126

One thing Google doesn't get is how big a deal it was to reject the DoD. Vast swaths of corporate America do business with the DoD. And a lot of people in DoD took the Prohect Maven backlash a bit personally. The general tenor of the conversations I have about GCp with these folks isn't "No, just flat no". It's "NO! Oh, hellll no!" The fact that they refuse to bump their FedRamp cert to cover DoD req'ts doesn't help.…

It seems very unlikely to me that google is not aware of this

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#127
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Azure was pretty late but their main fairly simple task was to cloud-enable the massive .net/MS-SQL army. I'd be interested to know about the number of: * Linux based deployments on Azure * Windows/.Net based deployments on other providers Basically I'm assuming that all the .NET crowd is hosted at Azure and the rest are being hosted on Amazon/Google/RedHat/Heroku. If that assumption is true (even with 4-5% of room…

Azure is bought in the boardroom, not by the engineers and ops staff that will use it on a day to day basis. When you have a $xx million Azure minimum commit that your C-level has already written a check for, you yell at your account team until they add Linux support and try to make due with what you have. I've heard internal numbers that Linux VMs outnumber Windows 2-to-1, but that they see long term value in doing…

Makes me wonder if instead we might see an MS branded Linux distro (think redhat) or C# native on Linux.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#128

I don't understand why Google doesn't woo silicon valley startups more aggressively. Gcloud is actually a pretty solid service, far more usable at varying levels of technical expertise. A lot of nice integrated tools for high end users (EC2/kub8/cloud console/etc) that gives AWS a good run for their money, and (gcloud web browser, web console, gcutils) for devs not that familiar with cloud tools that are significantl…

Google has lost much of the trust developers placed in them, first of all by terminating products some of us loved [1] and also by terminating user accounts in an automated fashion with no way to appeal. Imagine your business depending on Google Play Store, then getting your account banned due to some association with another account that supposedly broke their ToS, with no way to contact support, to appeal the decis…

FWIW, [4] appears to be at least unverifiable, since OP never posted again, and when support tried to reach out or find something that matched the listed details, they never heard back and couldn't find something that fit? [1]

(Not trying to claim that there's not a problem, just that the particular story seems to have a number of things that are suspect without further details.)

(I work for elgooG, not on anything Cloud or otherwise related to this, this is just my own $0.02, etc.)

[1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/8l231x/google_banne...

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely anecdotally speaking - at a few enterprises, convincing customers to make use of GCP has been an uphill battle. I notice deep misgivings regarding the support timescales, and even for supported products, poor support in general (ymmv+++). GCP do have a clause in their SLA/T&C where they promise a 1 year notice in the case of any services they plan to deprecate, but that hasn't helped assuage fears - they w…

As far as I know, AWS has never abandoned a service. They deprecate services and occasionally make services unavailable for new accounts.

Technically Amazon and not AWS but they deprecated then removed two separate payment APIs one after the other (SimplePay and another).

It’s the reason we haven’t adopted the latest replacement. Why bother?

Edit: thanks, it was indeed FPS.

Re: Google and IBM still trying desperately to move cloud market share needle

#130

The reason for IBM's failure is pretty obvious. Their old school bare-metal servers at Softlayer are a good value, but the need for bare metal is decreasing with IO improvements like SR-IOV and real hardware level virtualization (ex HVM on AWS). I've also heard IBM is running that division into the ground. Their cloud offering sucks. Last time I was curious, I couldn't even figure out how much my server would cost. T…

Completely anecdotally speaking - at a few enterprises, convincing customers to make use of GCP has been an uphill battle. I notice deep misgivings regarding the support timescales, and even for supported products, poor support in general (ymmv+++). GCP do have a clause in their SLA/T&C where they promise a 1 year notice in the case of any services they plan to deprecate, but that hasn't helped assuage fears - they w…

Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, and now even Canonical offer at least 10 years of support for their core products. That should be the bar for anyone who wants to enter the "enterprise" market. What's the point of using a software stack that comes with 10 years of support if the platform you're running it on won't be there in 10 years?
Post reply on HN