IT Desktop Support To Be Wiped Out Thanks To Cloud Computing 349
An anonymous reader writes "Tech industry experts are saying that desktop support jobs will be declining sharply thanks to cloud computing. Why is this happening? A large majority of companies and government agencies will rely on the cloud for more than half of their IT services by 2020, according to Gartner's 2011 CIO Agenda Survey."
Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloud computing isn't going to kill anything.
Wiped out or shifting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Desktop Support MIGHT decline, but we will see growth in service level jobs at third parties. Instead of having in-house IT staff teach people how to use e-mail, you'll have someone across the country or globe do the same job.
I guess one might argue that you can shift the jobs abroad, but as we've seen in the last few years such out-sourcing is not cost effective in the long term (or at least with skilled jobs it isn't).
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Survey-vertisement (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they were not lying. They were just off by a few years. 50% of IT jobs were going offshore by 2006. By 2010, they were all back again...
Good riddance (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you are worried about lost jobs, well, breaking windows is also a job, but it does no good. These people would be more beneficial to society doing something else.
--Coder
Seriously (Score:2, Insightful)
Who validates such bullcrap to be published on slashdot ?
There is not even a single argument or anything, just FUD and buzzword.
Will the cloud magically train users? (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked in desktop support for a number of different companies. (I've also done software testing, and programming.) Currently, I do end user support for a vertical software package.
Anyway, in ten years across four different firms supporting everything from commodity hardware to custom software, one thing has remained constant. Most support calls aren't for the sort of configuration and installation issues that the cloud solves. Rather, most support calls are for users that are unable (or unwilling) to read the manual or to show the user how to do things that are either too basic or too complicated to have been included in the manual.
Moving to the cloud isn't going to magically make a user understand the difference between a short cut and a file. Nor is it going to explain to them what those numbers in that report that hits that one table in the database means.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
agree. I run a service desk. Cloud computing doesn't eliminate the morons using computers. Cloud computing won't change a thing except provide new challengers to my tier 1 techs.
Anyone that knows anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you know anything, you know that's nonsense. For one thing, most companies require services not offered by the cloud. Beyond that, never under estimate the user's ability to not be able to find the O.N. button or otherwise screw up a foolproof system.
The IT situation is going to change. It always does. But abstracting it all to the cloud isn't possible unless you have a custom database designed for the amazon cloud or something and even then you've got the whole IT department that manages that.
Beyond that you have local files. Telling businesses that they can't get access to anything if the internet drops isn't going to work.
There are just so many serious fatal problems with this idea.
This funny little video touches on a few:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EbCkotKPU [youtube.com]
Yes yes... evil M$... insert hiss and boo... but we're talking about end user business software. Have fun clawing Excel out of their cold dead hands.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you no longer need a computer to "access the cloud"? And here I was labouring under the impression that the majority of support jobs were related to hardware faults, OS problems, malware and user error, how "the cloud" will stop this happening is a mystery.
The dumber the terminal, the fewer hardware faults, OS problems and malware, no? :).
Although in practice we can expect a dumbing down of the user base too
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch of useless buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's *always* cheaper to in-source (provided you can find the appropriate resources). You can either do it yourself, or you can pay someone their cost, which could be your cost, plus 20% or more overhead and profit. So outsourcing costs you a minimum of 20% more than doing it in house. But all the consultants swear it's better to outsource - to their company. That's like hiring the Fox and Co security company to guard the hen house.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you no longer need a computer to "access the cloud"? And here I was labouring under the impression that the majority of support jobs were related to hardware faults, OS problems, malware and user error, how "the cloud" will stop this happening is a mystery.
The dumber the terminal, the fewer hardware faults, OS problems and malware, no? Although in practice we can expect a dumbing down of the user base too :).
At some point it's got to to run an OS, maybe on a backend server instead of a workstation but it's there. Where there's an OS and users, there will be malware. The hardware faults will transfer to "server" instead of the workstation. An interesting change will be that a hardware fault that takes down the box will impact multiple users instead of just one. You will get the benefit of redundancy if you're running a real server, though.
As an aside, we had cloud computing in the 80's and 90's. We called it Client-Server and used terminals connected to unix servers (in my case specifically, HP-UX). Now we're doing the same thing, just with different hardware and software.
Gartner Strikes Again (Score:4, Insightful)
"Desktop support" isn't really about desktops. DUH. It's about users, who won't be going anywhere, and will continue to need to have their hands held for even the most trivial of things.
Maybe "the cloud" will make Gartner go away. The Cloud can do anything right?
Re:What a bunch of useless buzzwords (Score:2, Insightful)
"And it's *always* cheaper to in-source (provided you can find the appropriate resources)."
Not really some things have economies of scale and startup costs.
But as long as you're not a small business, or you'll only ever what one, then it's probably cheaper to go in-house. If you are a government or large business it's nearly always cheaper to in-house, but then you can't play silly accounting games like you can for per month service charges.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Survey? (Score:4, Insightful)
> The sad part is nobody seems to remember we have been down this road before....
Yup. I see "cloud" and I immediately think "client-server". Well, "client-virtual server hosted on some random network somewhere in a collection of physical servers", but whatever.
You can shuffle stuff between the client space and server space all you want, but 90% of day-to-day problems will still be found between the keyboard and the chair.
Re:What a bunch of useless buzzwords (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's *always* cheaper to in-source (provided you can find the appropriate resources). You can either do it yourself, or you can pay someone their cost, which could be your cost, plus 20% or more overhead and profit. So outsourcing costs you a minimum of 20% more than doing it in house. But all the consultants swear it's better to outsource - to their company. That's like hiring the Fox and Co security company to guard the hen house.
By that logic, you'd never need anything like suppliers, partners or subcontractors, it'd be cheaper to do everything yourself right down to making the PC all the way from mining silicates. Supporting your basic desktop is not something unique to your company and there's typically economics of scale. I doubt you need exactly twice the IT staff to double from 200 to 400 users. For an outsourcing company that might be increasing the desktops under management from 10,200 to 10,400 instead, they can do it for less because of economics of scale.
Just to take one very obvious example of non-core activity at least here in Norway a lot of the big companies use one of the same two-three big cafeteria operators. Why? Bigger quantities of food both in purchasing and in preparation, better redundancy in kitchens and serving staff and all the overhead is spread across more customers. By far most companies would prefer to simply hire in a company that's specialized on doing exactly that if there's a reasonable number of suppliers they could switch between. When to take the total cost of doing it in house, it just isn't worth it to most companies.
Re:What a bunch of useless buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's *always* cheaper to in-source (provided you can find the appropriate resources). You can either do it yourself, or you can pay someone their cost, which could be your cost, plus 20% or more overhead and profit. So outsourcing costs you a minimum of 20% more than doing it in house. But all the consultants swear it's better to outsource - to their company. That's like hiring the Fox and Co security company to guard the hen house.
Not always. Take email, look at the costs of using Google mail vs. running a complete, resilient mail system. Control over your data aside, for most small to medium businesses gmail will be a lot cheaper, not to mention more reliable and functional.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprisingly often, if past incidents are anything to go by.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, and it will stop the entire company from working when it happens.
Managers will start to think that individual PCs will prevent that...and we'll begin the circle of computing all over again. Just like the last time.
What'll actually happen (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of today's internal server support jobs will go away. But there will still be network infrastructure to support (somebody has to manage the switches, firewalls, and access points), there's still going to be desktop support (PEBKAC errors, hardware, and malware), and there will likely be at least some local resources that need to be managed. We won't have a lot of people managing Exchange servers or Active Directory anymore. Or actually we still will - they'll just be working for the cloud providers instead of the client company.
Besides that, this will open up opportunities for outsource support firms (disclaimer: I own a small one). Companies will still need specialized support resources on occasion, just likely not enough to employ a lot of them as staff. They will get that expertise as-needed to supplement what they have in-house.
Re:Survey? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times will you hear, "The cloud is down!"?
Do you not read any tech news at all?
There has been current and major failures with all the cloud services. Microsoft's most recently, and it was for more than a few minutes.
Are you confusing the "cloud" with the "internet?"
And....when this happens, you have ZERO control over resolving the issue, you sit and wait.
Re:Survey? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure this cycle has been repeated since the 1960s.
1) There are real advantages to centralization for some applications
2) There are real advantages to distributed for some applications
3) There are substantial additional costs in being both distributed and centralized
3 encourages people to move towards one extreme or the other. The conflict between 1 and 2 pushes the back towards the center.
Hardware isn't part of "The Cloud" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re:Survey? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Survey? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. Cloud computing doesn't mean that you don't have a desktop PC that you have to log into just to use the web browser and the printer. Where are all those cloud-thin clients deployed? I somehow don't see them... These days, "thin clients" are often desktops with a 3270 terminal emulator, or an RDP or VNC client. It's interesting how many businesses still use mainframe tech. Sometimes I see thin intranet shims over 3270, and that's even funnier. A real 3270-like or RDP/VNC terminal with remote provisioning would probably be truly zero-support, but desktops sure as heck aren't.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm...and thus the Distributed Cloud was born in the year 2016. Before that, cloud services were centralized and so were downtimes. Managers felt that this was a denial of service to the worker bees and in order to keep them happy, a distributed form of cloud service was necessary. In the new concept, individual PCs will perform cloud services for individual worker bees...at their OWN desk. Hailed as a remarkable productivity enhancer that made men stronger and women prettier, Management declared Victory with Honor and many awards were passed out. The Business World heaved a sigh of relief that the cloud scourge had been fixed. Techies merely heaved.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it an effing rest, will ya? We're talking about computers not polictics.
Re:Survey? (Score:5, Insightful)
For "cloud" access, a "thin client" has to be pretty beefy, because for access to "cloud" applications, the client will have to have not just a keyboard/mouse/TCP/IP stack (like an X-station), but a full OS that has to handle security, a Web browser with support for add-ons, and some form of persistent storage (so each machine can be uniquely identified via remote via a cookie, "super-cookie", LSO, or whatnot.)
With persistant storage comes HDDs or SDDs.
Desktop IT support is not going to vanish anytime soon:
1: Someone has to deal with broken machines/terminals in users' cubicles of offices. In theory, switching out a thin client would be the best thing, but in reality, thin clients tend to usually be more expensive than a generic x86 desktop, and with a desktop, parts can be swapped which means another client doesn't have to be purchased if one breaks. Of course, if it is a new thin client, it will have a different MAC address, so it won't be allowed on a locked down corporate network, which brings us to the next point.
2: There are going to be network admins. Packets don't magically route themselves, so someone is going to be there making sure the routers are working and secure, and local company policies are enforced. That way, a worm originating in one corporate department stays in that subnet and doesn't wind up in receiving or sales. Even if things work perfectly, someone is going to have to be there every six months to upgrade the router OS every time Cisco makes a major security update package.
Personally, cloud computing has its place, but it is not a cure-all, just like Javastations were not a cure-all when that was the rage, nor were X-stations the cure-all when that was important.
Re:One more step to getting rid of the user (Score:4, Insightful)
the trick is the "monkey" jobs are going away but the higher end jobs (where the PHBs allow it) will stay around.
part of the trick to Google Search is KNOWING WHAT TO GOOGLE
Re:Survey? (Score:0, Insightful)
"Which means he'll need far MORE training than current helpdesk people"
Training? What is this..."training" of which you speak?