Feeds

Google and the myth of the open cloud

The world's most closed open company

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if Google offers the world a web service, large numbers of people will convince themselves that it's superior to anything else they can get their hands on - and less likely to condemn them to some sort of Redmondian future in which a single corporation has them in a metaphorical vice grip.

So it is with Google App Engine, the 18-month-old service that lets outside developers build and run web apps on the company's very own distributed infrastructure. According to the market research types at Evans Data, developers everywhere are convinced that App Engine will overtake Amazon in the race into the so-called public cloud. They've even decided that the Google cloud is their best bet for avoiding the dreaded "vendor lock-in."

Google Cloud Evans Data

You know the mindset. Google says it's open, so it must be open. Google says that it has opened up more than one million lines of code, that it's hosting more than 150,000 open source projects, that its web browser is open, and that its mobile OS is open - so its cloud must be open too. Its cloud must be much more accommodating than Amazon's.

Except that it's not.

Google's famously distributed infrastructure is in no way open. Whereas the likes of Facebook and Yahoo! run much of their back-end setup on open source code, Google builds its own proprietary platforms - from the Google File System (GFS) to the number-crunching MapReduce platform to the BigTable distributed database - and these are jealously guarded. Google is reluctant to even talk about them.

What's more, these Googly platforms place extensive restrictions on what you can build atop them. This is true whether you're an internal Google developer or an outsider tapping the App Engine. There's good reason for this. The idea is to fit all applications to predefined templates that can run across the company's worldwide network of data centers, so that performance can scale up (near-)instantly as needed.

"The question is: how do you actually get the applications to use the infrastructure? How do you distribute it? How do you optimize it? That's the hard part. To do that you require an insane amount of force of will," Google senior manager of engineering and architecture Vijay Gill told a cloudy conference this summer.

"People are lazy. They say 'I don't want to design my applications into this confined space.' And it is a confined space. So you need a large force of will to get people to do that."

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
Windows NEIN skipped, tech preview due out on Wednesday
Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
Forget touchscreen millennials, Microsoft goes for mouse crowd
Apple: SO sorry for the iOS 8.0.1 UPDATE BUNGLE HORROR
Apple kills 'upgrade'. Hey, Microsoft. You sure you want to be like these guys?
ARM gives Internet of Things a piece of its mind – the Cortex-M7
32-bit core packs some DSP for VIP IoT CPU LOL
Microsoft on the Threshold of a new name for Windows next week
Rebranded OS reportedly set to be flung open by Redmond
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.