Is Cloud Computing the Hotel California of Tech? 250
Prolific blogger and open source enthusiast Matt Asay ponders whether cloud computing may be the Hotel California of tech. It seems that data repositories in the form of Googles and Facebooks are very easy to dump data into, but can be quite difficult to move data between. "I say this because even for companies, like Google, that articulate open-data policies, the cloud is still largely a one-way road into Web services, with closed data networks making it difficult to impossible to move data into competing services. Ever tried getting your Facebook data into, say, MySpace? Good luck with that. Social networks aren't very social with one other, as recently noted on the Atonomo.us mailing list. For the freedom-inclined among us, this is cause for concern. For the capitalists, it's just like Software 1.0 all over again, with fat profits waiting to be had. The great irony, of course, is that it's all built with open source."
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing like keeping your own data on your own system..
Apples and Oranges (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook and MySpace are not computing clouds they are applications
The google and amazon clouds are not applications(sort of). You can always move your data from one cloud to an other just back it up and restore it.
I would not expect to move cloud configuration from one cloud to another. That would be like moving from Windows to Linux, or Solaris to HP, they may be similar but work using different mechanisms.
Steve
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Google or EC2 a "closed data service?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone give a little depth to the vague and unsubstantiated comment in TFA, referencing i.e. google: "...with closed data networks making it difficult to impossible to move data into competing services."
So which is it? Difficult or impossible? Or both?
I'm not at all surprised that facebook or myspace are not jumping up and down to allow various kinds of data export. But the fact that these obstacles are conflated with google and EC2 policies in the same paragraph without giving any details whatsoever makes it tough to take this post very seriously.
What would stop you from taking your data out of the cloud? SFTP not allowed? Can't access Mysql DB from outside? I'm asking honestly - I'd love to know.
Why on earth would they do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever tried getting your Facebook data into, say, MySpace? Good luck with that.
From the "but-you-can-never-leave dept?" More like from the "no-shit-sherlock" dept... Why on earth would a company allow customers to automatically populate another company's website with your data? What I've found with social media sites is that if you invest so much time into inserting your data into their site, you are going to be much less inclined to go to the same thing again and again on other websites. Even if you don't like the interface as much as you may like some other site, you may feel a bit lazy and stick around. Whereas if the company said "here you go, click this button to transfer your profile to !" people would be jumping ship all over the place and it would be much more difficult to retain customers.
Capitalists? (Score:5, Insightful)
"For the capitalists, it's just like Software 1.0 all over again, with fat profits waiting to be had."
At the risk of stating the obvious, isn't the whole idea of the straw-man capitalist (as opposed to an individual in a capitalist society) that he/she treats everything as a profit opportunity? I mean, for the greedy, there are fat profits in rubber band manufacture or book binding or air fresheners, to choose three items I can see from my chair. It's necessarily not some intrinsic aspect of cloud computing/web 2.0/web 1.0/whatever.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
While all of this is true I think you took the reference a little far. They most likely just meant a small bit of the song.
"You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave."
For the freedom-inclined among us... (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAahahahahahahahahahah excuse me
ahaahaahha oh man im so sorry i just cant stop laughing at this idiotic comment
desperate "journalism" (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the more appropriate Eagles analogy here would be "Desperado" for the writer.
The summary is so far off I didn't even follow the link. Previous posters have already stated the obvious that transferring data between social web apps has nothing to do with cloud computing
Please don't tell this is just some ass-munch blog post. pllleasee.....
For the non Eagles fans here (Score:2, Insightful)
We are all just prisoners here, of our own device
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
And
They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast
Re:Facebook/Myspace != cloud computing (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Networking != Cloud Computing
Yes you can run some applications from facebook's/myspace's severs, but they are hardly the scale you'd need for say, a cloud based OS.
Until I can store/edit documents, compile code, host my own virtual server, run complex applications (GIMP, Blender Publisher) and basically do everything else that I use a computer for from what is basically a thin client connected to a gigantic central cluster, then it isn't cloud computing.
Though to be honest, I don't think I'd want to. Something about controlling my own hardware is appealing to me
About social networking being "hotel california"... WTF? "I can't transfer my info from myspace to facebook easily, so it must be lockin!" I'm sorry but that argument makes almost no sense. These are separate sites running on their own systems, they have their own way of communicating. Maybe if you can write a program to transfer data from one to the other, you could release it and solve this problem
About the concept of cloud computing being "hotel california"... Maybe. IF MS and Apple come out with cloud computing solutions, I assure you that they will be subscription based. If you want more features, you WILL pay a higher premium. And they will be orchestrated to stop you from using the other system, even though the hardware that you'd be using to connect to the cloud would be almost identical in both cases (A monitor, Mouse, Keyboard, and computer with just enough horsepower to run SSH)
Who knows though! Perhaps cloud computing will spawn the year of the linux desktop! Think about it, free servers run by philanthropists, serving people the content they want for a fraction of the price of running your own box!
In reality, MS and Apple will continue to do their best to keep linux under the public radar, a good deal of people will still own their own computers, but will probably use very lightweight cloud based laptops to do work portably. These people will pay high premiums for their right to use the system, while Linux/BSD/Solaris/Haiku users will have the same laptops running off of their own personal servers. Normal people's privacy will be marginalized and the large companies will have more control over most people's lives. And the cycle will continue...
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo.
Let's see, you upload images and text onto Facebook. Now, what's stopping you from uploading the same images and text onto MySpace? _Nothing_.
The author's bitch is that you don't have a one-click Export-Import function. Should you? Should Facebook or whoever be required to make the structure that they have provided for free use on their system portable?
That's the business deal here. There's structural lock-in, but not data lock-in, in exchange for free use of the structure. If you don't like it, you're not required to use it, and even if you do, you remain free to use your images and text however you want.
I've got an Ubuntu computer here. It's loaded with data and configurations. If I migrate to Windows or Mac, it's going to take hours of work before the new box is 'my' box in the same way, though in the end it will be done. Is Ubuntu or anyone else an asshole because of that?
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, EC2 gives the user no recourse if the system goes down for any reason, or if your data is lost. http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ [amazon.com] You get a 10% discount if the system uptime is less than 99.95%, but that's the extent of your rights. If you screw up, it's your fault. If Amazon screws up, it's their fault but your problem.
Now, the nice thing about Cloud Computing is scaling. When your magic startup starts generating massive throughput, you can just add resources to your EC2 allotment as needed. But for small deployments that don't anticipate sudden rapid growth, I don't get the appeal.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
I can assemble a nice rackmount 1U RAID server with better computing resources than that for the same price.
But you can't make it redundant, back it up, give it high-bandwidth connectiontivity, or maintain it for that price. The hardware itself, is by far the cheapest part of any server room.
But for small deployments that don't anticipate sudden rapid growth, I don't get the appeal.
Because building and maintaining any remotely reliable IT infrastructure is expensive and requires expertise that is, for most companies, utterly irrelevant to their core business.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just very nervous about entrusting the company meat and potatoes to an external business. If our stuff goes down because I screwed up - and it has happened - I can try to fix it immediately. If our power or internet connectivity goes down, I can work with the corresponding vendor to get it restored. If something goes wrong with my Cloud Computing setup, I am at the complete mercy of their technical staff. Instead of actively working to solve the problem, all I can do is stay on the phone with their tech support and hope they fix it. Naturally, I'd rather be working than waiting.
And of course, I'm at the mercy of the vendor. If they decide to shut down, I have to scramble to find replacement as quickly and painlessly as possible. If they decide to raise prices, I'm looking at an instant drop in operating income or else the expense of moving to another vendor.
I'm not saying the cloud is the wrong way to go. I'm just saying that I am nervous.
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not holding the information hostage. They still have it, from the same source they uploaded it from.
Saying that every service should be *required* to have a particular export to every other service is a good way to run banks, but not necessarily every business with user generated content.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
So the Insightful comment here is bascially that there is no such thing as data lock in? After all, you can always recreate the data you put in. It's not like these services make it up...
Sorry, but that's a bit like saying "Microsoft Word documents aren't proprietary, you could always re-type the same thing in Open Office!".
The Facbook / MySpace examples are inane. Do people really really care so much about migrating their social networking data? The article is more apt for SaaS "clouds" such as Salesforce or AWS. The author doesn't appear to indicate cloud providers should be mandated to prevent data lock in, just that customers should be aware of the data lock in of most cloud services.