Microsoft Enters Into Cloud Computing With Windows Azure
This morning at the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) in Los Angeles, Microsoft launched what appears to be its first strike in what could be deemed the Cloud Computing Wars, with the official announcement of Windows Azure. Azure is a services-based Web operating environment, similar to Amazon.com's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) Web services program and others that have been around the Internet for a while, that provide scalable hosting environments for developers to build and store applications. Basically we are talking a massive Web-based storage, development and distribution tool. But unlike EC2 and the others, Azure will almost certainly be exclusively Microsoft software centric, allowing developers to use .NET and other Microsoft based tools on the platform. And since Microsoft has the deepest pockets around they have been able to sink billions into this, building data centers all over the world in a move that may create a web platform as dominant as the one they enjoy on the PC.
So what does this mean for consumers who are not developers or employed by them? Initially, probably not much, but the fact that the biggest software company on the planet is jumping into cloud computing should perk up a lot of ears. Many consumers are starting to take note of netbooks, which are designed, as their name suggests, to be used primarily with tools that utilize the Internet as its conduit and storage device for software, thus negating the need of extreme processing power and weight adding hard drives. For many personal and business consumers this includes use of Internet-based versions of resource sucking a applications like the products that make up Microsoft Office. Good examples of these are Google Apps and Apple's MobileMe. Although not able to match the full features of say, any of their respective MS Office software counterparts, these Web apps cost a fraction of the amount a full-fledged Microsoft licensed product would, making them a real deal and a viable solution assuming a reliable Internet connection. So, do you think that Microsoft sees the writing on the wall as far as how the Internet will be used with regards to future software development, distribution and use? Most certainly. In fact, according to Microsoft Chief Software Executive (the job that used to be Bill's), Ray Ozzie, cloud computing and by way of it Azure, is,
"...a transformation of our software. It's a transformation of our strategy," continuing to say, "We are in the early days of a transformation to services across the industry."
This sounds to me like beginning of the end of the personal software collection as we know it, with items not only truly digitally delivered but accessed from a remote site. I will miss those multicolored gem cases. I like the idea, but it makes me nervous at the same time. No more storage devices destined to become coasters or necklaces and smaller and smaller pieces of hardware get a big thumbs up, but do we really want a complete service model where everything is developed, downloaded, purchased and tracked through the same process?
What do you think? Let me know.
--Tom Milnes
Michael Downs on October 28, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Interesting news, insightful post. While Microsoft’s move into cloud computing is less surprising than Amazon’s, it is clearly an acknowledgement that the trend to the cloud and away from the PC (and Windows) is irreversible. What is surprising is how long this move has taken. It is not coincidental that the Azure announcement came so close to MSFT’s earning call in which it was noted that Windows business unit sales growth had slowed considerably. I found this type of, largely reactive, strategy frustrating when I used to own their stock.
Tom Pollard on October 28, 2008 at 09:52 PM
Is Azure really comparable to EC2? From the announcement, it sounds more comparable to Google App Engine, that is, a set of tools for building web applications that exist in the "cloud". EC2 is a general virtual computing resource - anything you could imagine wanting to do on a physical Linux cluster could be moved to the cloud using EC2. Or, am I missing something about exactly what Azure and Google App Engine are?
Da Coyote on October 29, 2008 at 05:25 AM
Nope, don't want to just own a "remote terminal". The net goes down - and I cannot do any computing?
I think the opposite will happen...more and more at home storage. After all, had the Microsoft loons not gotten into it, we'd have had a stable and essentially complete OS years ago.
Lorenz Gude on October 29, 2008 at 06:22 AM
I love Netbooks. Been wanting one since I saw the HP Joordana probably 10 years ago. Bought the first eeePC and have no regrets, but I'm not buying the Google or the Azure model. What I find I put on the Netbook is the best lightweight apps - ie efficient tools - that I can find. Not MS or Open Office. Two such tools are NoteTab lite and Jarte - both interesting improvements on MS Notepad and Wordpad. But the key app on my eee is PDF RXchange Viewer, a free PDF reader that gives me the highlighting and commenting tools that Adobe charges for. What I want as a user is control of my PERSONAL computer. I don't want to surrender it to the cloud. I don't want my computer to become like a cell phone with programs others choose wedded to an expensive subscription plan. To paraphrase Eric S Raymond I see Azure as an attempt to colonize the Noosphere.
Spectre765 on October 29, 2008 at 06:33 AM
I don't trust Microsoft or anyone else to safeguard my interests, only their own. I want as much of my important information as possible on my own hardware, secured and protected and sitting right there next to my desk and the stockpiled ammunition.
You just can't be too careful these days.
celebrim on October 29, 2008 at 06:42 AM
I see it as a huge loss of personal liberty. The home computer with its associated applications (word processing, spreadsheets, publishing software, compilers, photo editors, etc.) have done alot to create a real golden age of personal freedom. Effectively, it has put the power of the press into the hands of ordinary citizens, and because it can be conducted entirely on ones private property it has been an unregulated press capable of evading (if it desired) any government oversite or censorship.
Removing both the majority of the hardware and the application that runs on it to a remote location may result in certain benefits, but it requires connectivity, oversight, and dependencies that don't seem to me to be worth the trade off. It would be something like allowing me to own a gun, but requiring me to store it in the courthouse and check it out whenever I wish to use it. Theoretically, I still retain my right of ownership, but in practice it has become a fully rescindable right that is utterly dependent on the whim, will, and availability of someone else.
Dave Eaton on October 29, 2008 at 07:16 AM
I don't trust anyone with my private data, either, and I agree with the commenter who is uncomfortable with relying on 'the cloud' for all his computing.
But I don't see this as either/or. I expect to continue to have plenty of horsepower on my desk, with my own set of local software. But I'd be happy to be able to carry around something portable, lightweight, and connected in a much less expensive way than current systems.
I want microsoft to spend the early money on this, and to make all the necessary and expensive mistakes. Then open source types can learn from their work and concentrate on doing it better, which will goad ms into improving. Or not.
Steve White on October 29, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Microsoft has a history of announcing products that somehow never see the light of day so as to freeze the market in place. So before we speculate on what 'Azure' will do, I'd want to see the delivered product.
I could also snark on what Azure would look like given the blunders Microsoft has made with Vista, but that would be unfair. Fun, but unfair.
'Cloud' versus 'local' computing seems to be the choice here. My response: why can't I have both, choosing for myself the benefits of each? There may be reasons to use cloud computing. Indeed, web browsing already is that: I have a client browser that (in terms of computing muscle required) is pretty thin, with all the data (webpages and links) stored in the cloud. But cloud computing likely won't replace any time soon the need for the finance office to run vertically-integrated software to handle their needs. And it might not even replace my desire to keep my photo album on a local computer.
Celebrim makes an interesting point about privacy: if all your personal data is in the cloud then it is potentially accessible to various snoops, government and private. Would government ever do that? I don't know, let's ask 'Joe the Plumber' about the state officials that dug through his records lookng for dirt. That's just one example.
And government would almost certainly be drawn to tax your use of the cloud -- it would be irresistible. You already pay taxes to use the internet (cable or telephone), so additional taxes for cloud access and storage would not be a big stretch.
The ideal of a 'thin client' attached to a vast network is merely the latest version of the 1960s, when IBM wanted thin desktop clients (back then, as big as a bread-box) connected to their big iron computers. That way the IT people could control the entire experience -- for your own good, of course. Azure is that vision for the coming decade, with lots of MS-certified IT people telling you how'll you access and use your data. You certainly don't think you'll understand the cloud without their help, do you?
If we are to have a cloud, Apple's 'MobileMe' vision seems to be a better one: more personal, less intrusive, and designed mostly so that you can connect to the various parts of your self -- cell phone, laptop, home computer, etc -- no matter where you are. You end up deciding how much of you lives in the cloud. It's still a little disconcerting but it seems to offer me more control than does Azure, mostly because it seems to be less inclusive and encompassing.
I would suggest that the key is both the balance between local and cloud, and who controls that balance point: you or IT.
David Oboyski on October 29, 2008 at 08:31 AM
While I have some concerns about privacy issues, especially for my stored data, my greatest fear is access. When I went through a lengthy unemployment, I cancelled my online backup subscription and deferred upgrades to much of my software. Those choices still left me access to my resumes, cover letters and other job-search tools, and the ability to edit and publish them, albeit on older software.
What happens if my services are all 'Net-based? If I can't afford to pay my subscription, don't I lose my ability to access my data, to edit my documents and to publish them?
My experience with MusicMatch was instructive. I bought songs from MusicMatch, but stopped using it for about 18 months. I made the full switch to iTunes at that point, and went back to burn CDs of my purchased songs. MusicMatch had been through two or three M&As, and they no longer supported verification of my purchases. In one stroke, I lost access to several hundred dollars worth of music. (Fortunately, I jury-rigged a fix that takes so long that I'm STILL transferring the music a few months later.)
I like many of the benefits of online service subscriptions for Office suite products, but access to my files and access to my software are major concerns for me.
Claude Hopper on October 29, 2008 at 08:46 AM
The great circle route? Azure = mainframe with dumb terminals.
luagha on October 29, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Sun Microsystems tried to do this years ago with Java-based thin clients, as well. They found out that it didn't work then for all the reasons given above - First, if the net is down, if you don't have connectivity, you're dead in the water. Second, people want to own their tools, not rent them.
Cody Hatch on October 29, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I think most of the people commenting here have no idea what cloud computing is.
Cloud computing is web hosting.
Okay, it's nice web hosting, its easy for developers, its scalable, its great, blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, it's just webhosting.
The gradual shift from desktop email clients like Eudora to webmail clients like GMail is possibly troubling, and does raise issues of "who owns my data", "what happens if the vendor goes out of business", and if the service is non-free "what happens if I cancel my subscription".
But all of this had sod all to do with cloud computing. When you pick a webmail app it might be hosted in the vendors own datacenter (like GMail), by Amazon's EC2 (like MailTrust), hosted in a "normal" third party data center (like Lycos), or - someday - by Windows Azure. Some of these are "clouds", some are not - either way, they all end up with your data somewhere else.
Does what arcane technology ultimately powers the website you visit matter to you? Ever used Flickr? Do you know who/what hosts them? Do you care? Probably not.
Lorenz Gude on October 29, 2008 at 08:22 PM
I'm not convinced that I have no idea what cloud computing is by Cody Hatch above. Isn't the MS vision of Azure a fee for service model of hosting everything they can think of on their servers and charging accordingly? Isn't the key difference scale that makes Azure more than just web hosting and start to look like the old thin client model which always tries to lock up control and ultimately money? My understanding right or wrong is that MS is an industrial age company that operates hierarchicly with centralized control to dominate markets. We are in the electronic age that at least sometimes, works much better when it operates in a looser decentralized fashion. (McLuhan, Raymond) I do care who hosts services and if it starts to look like one company is doing the lot then I am worried that I'll lose control of both my data and the tools I use to work on it.
Tom Pollard on October 30, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Many companies that proclaim themselves to be cloud computing providers may just be fancy web-hosting services, but cloud computing is much more than simply 'web hosting'. Amazon EC2 is a completely general computing resource. You can use it to replace in-house computers for all kinds of applications that have nothing to do with the web.