16 Oct
Posted by: Trevor in: Amazon, Cloud Computing, Hosting, Oppportunity, Utility
Behold Sinners! The Apocalypse Aproacheth. No in all seriousness if you run a managed hosting company then your time is officially ‘up’. You won’t survive the coming hosting Apocalypse. Here’s why.
There are a few companies you may have heard of building large compute grids for consumption by the general public. They’re calling them their Cloud Computing products. IBM is building BlueCloud, Microsoft is building the Mesh, Amazon already has EC2, and Google has AppEngine. AppEngine is in a slightly different category than the others and the BlueCloud details are sparse, but they’re still worth mentioning. Of more immediate interest are Amazon and Microsoft’s solutions.
Microsoft is currently building their famous 300,000 server Data Center in Chicago. That’s roughly 3 times the number of servers that Google has. Microsoft has also announced several other Data center projects - each worth about $500 Million. It’s fair to say that that’s a lot of computing power, and it’s not all for MSN - Microsoft is planning on providing their platform in the cloud.
The real question is what Amazon will do when the Windows Cloud comes online. Microsoft has enough money in the bank to provide their 300,000 servers to customers for *years* without earning a single cent. That implies they can offer services at super low rates; Low enough to at least compete with Amazon’s EC2, which will support the Windows Server OS in fall 2008.
What happens with two huge cloud hosting companies get into a price war?
In the interest of self preservation they won’t make their services commodities - at least right away. But it won’t even matter. When you’re as big as Amazon, Microsoft, Google or IBM, you can afford to buy servers in such massive quantities that you could make money selling compute time for 10$ a month. The hosting space will change forever, because Amazon will eventually drop their prices by an *order of magnitude* and that has dire implications for the rest of the Mom’n'Pop hosting companies.
If thousands of companies can’t compete with Microsoft or Amazon on price, and they can’t compete in terms of convenience, then why would anyone use them? If you have to buy individual servers, or even servers by the rack, then you’re not going to get the price you need to be able to compete. You also don’t have access to the handful of specialized individuals and hardware required to make things work on such a grand scale.
The only answer is for all the smaller players to band together - to create a Federated Hosting environment, where together they can provide services that begin approaching levels of service and power that the Big 4 will offer.
Either way, we’re in an interesting period in the industry. Computing and the infrastructure of technology has become such a requirement for the economy that it will eventually become a general utility. The real question is who will be around.
Do you think it’s the end? We’re working on the answer, and your opinion is important.
12 Responses
Vincent Janelle
16|Oct|2008 1hmm, dunno about that. People go with managed hosting because they don’t know how to admin their machines, or they don’t want to have the staff to do it ($2k/mth for 2-5 servers is cheaper than a $5k/mth sysadmin). You still need that technical know-how to manage EC2, and I’m sure microsoft’s cloud will be about the same.
VMUNIX Blues » Blog Archive » Cloud computing is a sea change - How sysadmins can prepare
17|Oct|2008 2[...] ideas and he has taken those ramblings and run with them, putting up a compelling piece entitled Hosting Apocalypse that you should probably just go read. I’ll wait. What it did for me is put into focus the [...]
Michael
17|Oct|2008 3Exactly. The vast majority of our customers wouldn’t know a shell prompt if it bit them in the face. Even with web based interfaces (cpanel, plesk, etc.) they still put in a ticket about doing the simplest of things.
Jacob Stewart
17|Oct|2008 4My suspicion is that webhosts (such as mine) will just trade “cloud computing charges” for hardware costs and AC power bills. I’m deploying my new hosted sites on Amazon’s EC2 cloud (Drupal, WordpressMU), and find it much easier to deal with than the conventional “buy more boxen” approach we’ve used for the last 14 years in this business.
Jim Pick
17|Oct|2008 5I’ve been playing around with some interesting very experimental “cloud” technologies as of late.
What has become clear in my mind is that there is a very clear delineation between the specification/development of a service, and the process of actually deploying/instantiating it.
Historically, you were tied to your infrastructure, and you had to develop with that in mind. Now, that just isn’t the case. It’s now possible to develop your app with any number of frameworks, and be able to deploy that app with any number of hosting providers with extremely little effort to switch.
The overall cost of the physical hosting of apps will trend towards zero — or at least be a very small percentage of the monthly cost of a service. So there will be a proliferation of cheap “feature-as-a-service”, or “compact utility” style services targetted at developers. Those developers will be able to cobble together a bunch of these smaller “cloud” services into a more complete “value-add” implementation for a consumer-facing service.
In terms of “buy vs. build”, things are definitely shifting towards the “buy” direction. Developers will need to become experts in picking economical services that are also going to stick around for a long time. These types of services can safely be built into the lower levels of their infrastructure stacks.
I think there’s a role for free / open source software to play here. Developers will be specifying and “buying” services to underlay their apps. A good strategy here would be to stick to “buying” only those fine-grained services that could easily be replicated with some free software and additional effort if the need arises.
The most successful cloud infrastructure providers will be the ones that can support the broadest range of services in one place (co-location). Right now, AWS is a good example of this (eg. EC2, S3, SimpleDB, SQS, etc.). Some of the large players, such as Microsoft and Google, may not fare so well here, especially if they build preferences and biases into their clouds in order to favour their proprietary services over those of others.
The future is cloudy | Bootup Labs Blog
17|Oct|2008 6[...] that end, I completely agree with his most recent post on the future of the hosting industry: Hosting Apocalypse. Yep, that does deserve a drumroll and an explosion. I could go into all sorts of Gutenberg [...]
Will your next web host be in the cloud? | Internet Life | A View from the Isle
18|Oct|2008 7[...] Behan passed around this link from Trevor this morning—Hosting Apocalypse | LayerBoom Networks—which has the gist that was cloud computing centres like Amazon’s EC2 and Google Apps engine [...]
Matthew Hall
18|Oct|2008 8If Microsoft’s option is Windows only(which im fairly certain it will be, that’s how they roll) then Amazon is going to have absolutely no competition. No one cares about Windows Server OS. Linux is where its at.
Jon Hancock
18|Oct|2008 91 - Windows Server is not used much in any open Internet context. Even if you look at using this for in-house, using Microsoft’s cloud to run your windows clients from 1000 miles away will always have bandwidth hiccups. i.e. “GUI replication doesn’t belong in the cloud”
2 - This article assumes only the U.S. Maybe EU where Amazon also has hosting. There are severe restrictions for hosting in other countries, like China, where growth is high and this type of models won’t work due to gov restrictions.
Walmart Computing - Understanding Utility Computing and Economies of Scale | trevoro.ca | blog
21|Oct|2008 10[...] Walmart computing is the new term I’m inventing to describe what happens when the Utility Computing or one aspect of the Cloud computing movement makes it bigtime. The idea is simple enough. As more companies access virtual resources instead of real, physical servers then that will result in a reordering of the infrastructure. That reordering will also imply massive cost changes, like I’ve written about before over at LayerBoom. [...]
Thom Allen
22|Oct|2008 11Honestly, people are going to see names like Amazon, IBM and Google, and assume stability and reliability. These companies have a solid brand. If they make their cloud services affordable for the average users, and makes the management tools easy to use, it only makes sense the current state of hosting will change.
James Byers
23|Nov|2008 12“That’s roughly 3 times the number of servers that Google has.”
Google has long downplayed their server count (tens of thousands is the typical public statement since the early 2000s), and 100,000 does not jive with either their capital expenditure over the last year or many published estimates over the last few years. I’d guess that number is substantially larger.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9955184-7.html
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/03/a_question_for.php
Leave a reply
Twitter
Flickr
Recent Comments
Tags
cdn cloud aws content delivery network api service colocation hosting servers sun free econonmics energy green computing grid transparency hostingCategories