Amazon: The Microsoft of the cloud
Will AWS eat all the competition?
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Open ... and Shut Is there a cloud market, or is there an Amazon market?
Even as the cloud market booms, it's an open question whether there is room for anyone besides Amazon to benefit. Even as Microsoft dominated desktop computing over the past two decades, Amazon seems set to own the public cloud for years to come, notwithstanding attempts to circumvent its hegemony. With the next generation of startups building on Amazon, the industry is "Amazon all the way down", and perhaps for a very long time.
So should we love or hate Amazon?
Mark Suster, an investor with GRP Partners, believes Amazon has been a godsend to the startup world, in particular. As he writes, "Where open-source computing gave us a 90 per cent reduction in our software, Amazon gave us a 90 per cent reduction in our total operating costs." This isn't just a money thing, either: Amazon has made it dramatically easier to launch a service and to scale it.
Which is great, except for one thing: Amazon has a voracious appetite. As I heard from one prominent venture capitalist recently, "Two years ago Amazon was a blessing to startups. Today it is neutral. In two years it may well be a curse." How so? By building up Amazon Web Services to include many services currently offered by other vendors.
In a separate post, Suster acknowledges this risk, but posits that companies like RightScale have managed to innovate beyond Amazon's grasp. Perhaps. But for every RightScale there's a company that gets steamrollered by Amazon's ever-broadening AWS ambition: storage? S3. Database? SimpleDB. Payments? Flexible Payments Service. And so on.
If this sounds familiar, that's because it is. At one time Microsoft petrified VCs who refused to invest in the desktop giant's path. Anything that could conceivably be part of the operating system was essentially ceded to Microsoft, and not always to good effect. A lazy monopolist is hardly the best innovator.
Is Amazon the new Microsoft? Perhaps.
After all, AWS is arguably the world's new operating system, broadly defined. And just like Microsoft before it, Amazon is going to keep adding adjacent technologies to its core EC2 cloud computing service to make it the go-to cloud provider.
Not everyone is convinced, however. One VC I talked to pooh-poohed the notion that Amazon would prove a credible competitor outside its core Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) offering. Other commentators on Twitter suggested ways to diminish Amazon's cloud dominance. For example, analyst Krishnan Subramanian believes that federated clouds hold the answer.
In other words, if CIOs can efficiently stitch together disparate cloud resources - public and private - then Amazon becomes one component in a larger cloud ecosystem, and not necessarily the one-cloud-to-rule-them-all that it is today. It's an interesting thought, one echoed by developer Jon Cox, and one that is being tackled by at least one startup I've seen, which will launch its service in Q1. (Sorry, I'm under "friend-DA" on this one.)
But this strikes me as just the sort of thing that Amazon could enable, keeping itself as the hub of this federated cloud ecosystem. So long as all roads lead to Amazon, I doubt Amazon will mind to which alternative cloud providers the spokes lead.
Of course, it's possible that, as some suggest, Amazon's hegemony is isolated to one of the smaller components of the global cloud market, with the Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) markets being much larger.
But does this mean Amazon's largesse shouldn't bother us? I don't think so, for all the reasons Suster points out. Startups are founded on Amazon, not Salesforce or other PaaS/SaaS platforms. They may well decide to grow out of their EC2/S3 roots, but that then requires them to essentially build their own cloud.
Meanwhile, no one that is directly challenging Amazon in the public IaaS market has managed to chip away at its 90 per cent market share. And given the gargantuan costs associated with building out the infrastructure to compete with Amazon, few can be expected to do so. IDC analyst Al Gillen argues that unlike Microsoft, Amazon isn't doing anything that technically locks in customers, and he's right. Much like Google in search, Amazon's dominance is built on its provision of a quality service at very low cost.
But that's not really my point. I'm not suggesting that Amazon is doing anything wrong. In fact, I think its dominance is due to Amazon doing so much right.
Still, as an industry we may come to rue our over-reliance on one big public cloud infrastructure company. Just as we increasingly wince at Wal-Mart's dominance in consumer retail, we may well wish that Amazon had better competition in the cloud. Perhaps this is because of innovation lost (Microsoft stifled desktop innovation because there was no need to move the industry forward when the status quo was minting it billions of dollars), or simply because, as one VC told me, a cloud computing market dominated by one vendor is "really boring."
Your thoughts, please. Why haven't we seen a serious competitor in the IaaS space to Amazon? And is this cause for concern? ®
Matt Asay is senior vice president of business development at Nodeable, offering systems management for managing and analysing cloud-based data. He was formerly SVP of biz dev at HTML5 start-up Strobe and chief operating officer of Ubuntu commercial operation Canonical. With more than a decade spent in open source, Asay served as Alfresco's general manager for the Americas and vice president of business development, and he helped put Novell on its open source track. Asay is an emeritus board member of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). His column, Open...and Shut, appears three times a week on The Register.
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
COMMENTS
Basic economics
I agree - the main reason Amazon doesn't have any major AWS competitors is that they have a huge advantage in marginal costs, from scale and from recovering efficiencies in their core business.
It's the IT equivalent of one of their other sidelines - doing order fulfillment for smaller online vendors. I often see orders from some-small-outfit.com arrive in an Amazon box. Amazon has a big online-order-fulfillment infrastructure in place, with warehousing and shipping and the rest. It's a big, robust operation with excellent economies of scale. So they sell their excess capacity; that's all gravy.
AWS is doing the same thing with their computing infrastructure. It's successful in large part because it's cheap, and it's cheap because the real costs are already absorbed by the primary line of business. Google is doing the same thing, except with PaaS frosting on their cake.
Back in the day, it was pretty common for smaller mainframe shops to run a service bureau business on the side, renting out spare mainframe capacity. That's how startups writing mainframe software (I worked for one for several years) did their development. None of this is new.
Here's a thought.
Amazon started out with this cloudy thing because it was a nice way to sell off the needed-for-peak-but-otherwise-excessive computing power and/or perhaps monetize written-off kit for a mite longer. That means their hardware costs are effectively marginal, making it much harder for also-rans to beat them with a cloud-only startup. You win that by scale, something amazon gets for free, as a side effect to their business needs.
This also has its own weaknesses, of course.Seeing, for example, how their infrastructure can crap out in mysterious ways with no redress, well, even just that could provide a much-needed opening for competition. Do you really want to bet the company on a giant that's essentially providing your critical infrastructure as a hobby?
As so often, so here too: The fact that we gained choice means we also gain the need to conciously choose.
Amazon going the way of the mainframe?
This got me mulling over the time they were racking up the debts to build out their infrastructure. And it's one big smooth operation now, very pretty, very profitable, and built on books. Book shipping that they're now single-handedly killing off with the kindle.
I'm sure they'll still have a use for all that infrastructure they've built even after most books cease to be shipped in paper form. Mayhaps even moreso. It just, well, makes you think. They're actually reinventing themselves. That may or may not have an impact on just what is marginal for them, so maybe their billing model will have to follow, too.
Anyhow. Don't focus on the hype. Look at what amazon is really up to. And, of course, while software is far easier to scale out (with or without the cloud) for a start-up, amazon has also made scaling out easier and cheaper for certain classes of "real world apps". In fact, with the advent of additive manufacturing and related tricks (like easy pcb-to-order manufacturing, fabless fabbing, drop shipping, fulfillment, what have you), the next big thing might not even be software/internet/cloud centered. Don't get too stuck in the past (bubble), eh.

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring