Comments on: Contentious Issue: When Does a SaaS Offering Qualify As a Cloud SaaS Offering? http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205 Hoff's Ramblings about Information Survivability, Information Centricity, Risk Management and Disruptive Innovation. Oh, I have a fondness for virtualization and cloud computing security, too... Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:54:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Rational Survivability » There’s A Difference Between Application/OS Multitenancy and Data(base) Multitenancy http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-11366 Rational Survivability » There’s A Difference Between Application/OS Multitenancy and Data(base) Multitenancy Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:14:31 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-11366 [...] to SaaS providers wherein the required characteristics “require” multitenancy (see my post here,) many if not most SaaS offerings fail to meet the criterion.  If we think along the lines of not [...] [...] to SaaS providers wherein the required characteristics “require” multitenancy (see my post here,) many if not most SaaS offerings fail to meet the criterion.  If we think along the lines of not [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: whether a ‘private’ or ‘internal’ cloud is really a ‘cloud’ « すでにそこにある雲 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-11058 whether a ‘private’ or ‘internal’ cloud is really a ‘cloud’ « すでにそこにある雲 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:18:11 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-11058 [...] Contentious Issue: When Does a SaaS Offering Qualify As a Cloud SaaS Offering? [...] [...] Contentious Issue: When Does a SaaS Offering Qualify As a Cloud SaaS Offering? [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Allen Baranov http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10727 Allen Baranov Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:56:14 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10727 I think you need to look at economics to get a good idea of what "cloud" is because, at the end of the day, its a business term even if the technology guys are abusing it. Basically, you have two type of expenses - CAPEX and OPEX. CAPEX is Capital expenses which are (in IT) servers, cables, racks, routers, aircon, etc etc. OPEX is operational expenses - electricity, people, repairs etc. When you buy equipment then there is a large outlay of money but this is a once off cost. It is also rather wasted because you will always add in some "cover" for future growth. Capex is traditionally done in advance too. Capex is always horrible because it is a large amount of money at once. Opex is also difficult to determine upfront - how many IT staff will we need? How do we predict this? So, cloud computing comes along and delivers a per usage price. No capex, no opex. No predictions, no mess, no fuss. You pay per user or per email, or per gigabyte, or something. Its easy to calculate and the accountants are happy. Cloud is a benefit - not a technology. Now, try fit your technology into that definition - does SaaS take away the need for Capex (and traditional Opex) and replace it with pure Opex? I believe it does. Does it matter what technology is used underneath the SaaS "layer"? No, I don't believe so, as long as you (and your accountants) don't have to worry when your SaaS provider needs a new server. I think you need to look at economics to get a good idea of what “cloud” is because, at the end of the day, its a business term even if the technology guys are abusing it.

Basically, you have two type of expenses – CAPEX and OPEX. CAPEX is Capital expenses which are (in IT) servers, cables, racks, routers, aircon, etc etc. OPEX is operational expenses – electricity, people, repairs etc.

When you buy equipment then there is a large outlay of money but this is a once off cost. It is also rather wasted because you will always add in some “cover” for future growth. Capex is traditionally done in advance too. Capex is always horrible because it is a large amount of money at once.

Opex is also difficult to determine upfront – how many IT staff will we need? How do we predict this?

So, cloud computing comes along and delivers a per usage price. No capex, no opex. No predictions, no mess, no fuss. You pay per user or per email, or per gigabyte, or something. Its easy to calculate and the accountants are happy.

Cloud is a benefit – not a technology.

Now, try fit your technology into that definition – does SaaS take away the need for Capex (and traditional Opex) and replace it with pure Opex? I believe it does.

Does it matter what technology is used underneath the SaaS “layer”? No, I don’t believe so, as long as you (and your accountants) don’t have to worry when your SaaS provider needs a new server.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Wes Smith http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10675 Wes Smith Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:05:08 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10675 Our company has been providing hosted solutions since 2001. "cloud" is really loose because while we started as traditional managed host, we have evolved to a mix of single tennant, multi tenant, saas and iaas offerings. So is our service brand cloud? By NIST probably not, but I can tell you neatly every new customer is looking for cloud and when we ask what that means, it is exactly what we offer. They don't want responsibility for anything but maybe owning licenses. To make it even more difficult, if you offer a solution that does not include support, as in help desk, then they don't think it's cloud. So if I had to define cloud, based on the market, I'd say use of IT services without owning anything, including people on payroll. Our company has been providing hosted solutions since 2001. “cloud” is really loose because while we started as traditional managed host, we have evolved to a mix of single tennant, multi tenant, saas and iaas offerings. So is our service brand cloud? By NIST probably not, but I can tell you neatly every new customer is looking for cloud and when we ask what that means, it is exactly what we offer. They don’t want responsibility for anything but maybe owning licenses. To make it even more difficult, if you offer a solution that does not include support, as in help desk, then they don’t think it’s cloud. So if I had to define cloud, based on the market, I’d say use of IT services without owning anything, including people on payroll.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Krishna Sankar http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10674 Krishna Sankar Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:04:04 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10674 <a href="#comment-10639" rel="nofollow">@Sam Johnston </a> In this rare occasion I agree with Sam ;o) Yep, internal details are irrelevant. My thoughts at my blog http://doubleclix.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/when-is-saas-a-cloud-saas-let-us-hassle-the-choff/ @Sam Johnston
In this rare occasion I agree with Sam ;o) Yep, internal details are irrelevant. My thoughts at my blog http://doubleclix.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/when-is-saas-a-cloud-saas-let-us-hassle-the-choff/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: When is SaaS a Cloud SaaS – Let us hassle the (C)Hoff ? « My missives http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10672 When is SaaS a Cloud SaaS – Let us hassle the (C)Hoff ? « My missives Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:35:15 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10672 [...] Filed under: Uncategorized — ksankar @ 9:35 am Fellow comrade Chris Hoff has an interesting blog post on what exactly is a Cloud SaaS. Me thinks most of his points miss the mark. Let me elaborate [...] [...] Filed under: Uncategorized — ksankar @ 9:35 am Fellow comrade Chris Hoff has an interesting blog post on what exactly is a Cloud SaaS. Me thinks most of his points miss the mark. Let me elaborate [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Sam Johnston http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10639 Sam Johnston Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:30:12 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10639 @beaker: Scalability of cloud solutions in both directions is essential IMO - that is, I can sign up a single user at 3am on a Sunday by "self service" and start consuming immediately, then roll it out to squillions of users on Monday morning. My electricity provider doesn't tell me I have to consume at least X kWh, and I can consume as much as I like (within reason) provided I've got a fat enough pipe. The provider can use <a href="http://samj.net/2008/07/future-of-cloud-computing-army-of.html" rel="nofollow">an army of monkeys</a> (SpinVox?) if they want but I don't [need to] care, so it is of no concern to me whatsoever. Thus it's a poor metric for what is/is not cloud. Sam @beaker:

Scalability of cloud solutions in both directions is essential IMO – that is, I can sign up a single user at 3am on a Sunday by “self service” and start consuming immediately, then roll it out to squillions of users on Monday morning. My electricity provider doesn’t tell me I have to consume at least X kWh, and I can consume as much as I like (within reason) provided I’ve got a fat enough pipe.

The provider can use an army of monkeys (SpinVox?) if they want but I don’t [need to] care, so it is of no concern to me whatsoever. Thus it’s a poor metric for what is/is not cloud.

Sam

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: SaaS v. Cloud Should Not Be Contentious… | CloudBzz http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10606 SaaS v. Cloud Should Not Be Contentious… | CloudBzz Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:12:39 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10606 [...] Hoff has a new post over at Rational Survivability where he attempts to make sense of when a SaaS solution should or should not be considered [...] [...] Hoff has a new post over at Rational Survivability where he attempts to make sense of when a SaaS solution should or should not be considered [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: beaker http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10596 beaker Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:52:22 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10596 <blockquote cite="#commentbody-10584"> <strong><a href="#comment-10584" rel="nofollow">Armorguy</a> :</strong> <p><a href="#comment-10578" rel="nofollow">@beaker </a><br> Personally, I think I’d rather see people talk in simpler terms about the solutions they are building and the use cases they support. I’d rather talk about the assumptions, risks, and capabilities of a solution set than what it should be labeled. Perhaps I am being naive but I suspect the solutions that provide the best perceived value will be the ones that win – no matter what we call them.</p> </blockquote> I'm with you on that. I think this issue has been rattling around in my head for long enough and it finally dawned on me as to why. I have the clarity I need. The rest of you -- you're on your own. ;) /Hoff

Armorguy :

@beaker
Personally, I think I’d rather see people talk in simpler terms about the solutions they are building and the use cases they support. I’d rather talk about the assumptions, risks, and capabilities of a solution set than what it should be labeled. Perhaps I am being naive but I suspect the solutions that provide the best perceived value will be the ones that win – no matter what we call them.

I’m with you on that. I think this issue has been rattling around in my head for long enough and it finally dawned on me as to why.

I have the clarity I need. The rest of you — you’re on your own. ;)

/Hoff

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Armorguy http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10584 Armorguy Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:48:11 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10584 <a href="#comment-10578" rel="nofollow">@beaker </a> Hoff, I see you more as an architect than a marketer... The difference is that you are looking to fit or design solutions into a definition. Marketers are looking to fit the definition on their existing solutions. That's, I suspect, the rub here. You (and a lot of other folks) are putting a lot of thought into trying to figure out what cloud is/should be/can be and the marketing folks are latching onto a buzzword in order to close deals as fast as they can no matter what it is they are actually selling. I think that the "cloud" term is already so amorphous and "polluted" that it's going to mean whatever people want it to mean. Seriously, from my perspective most of the dialog I see on "cloud" is about esoteric definition - not pragmatic solution. Executives, who write the checks, do not have the attention span to discuss/understand/care about esoterica - they want cost-effective solutions to problems *now*...and if they can tell the Board that it's "Cloud Technology" so much the better. That, my friend, is a marketing guys wet dream. Personally, I think I'd rather see people talk in simpler terms about the solutions they are building and the use cases they support. I'd rather talk about the assumptions, risks, and capabilities of a solution set than what it should be labeled. Perhaps I am being naive but I suspect the solutions that provide the best perceived value will be the ones that win - no matter what we call them. OK, take a breath. Drink a Hoffachino. Then, let's sort it all out... :) @beaker
Hoff,

I see you more as an architect than a marketer…

The difference is that you are looking to fit or design solutions into a definition. Marketers are looking to fit the definition on their existing solutions. That’s, I suspect, the rub here. You (and a lot of other folks) are putting a lot of thought into trying to figure out what cloud is/should be/can be and the marketing folks are latching onto a buzzword in order to close deals as fast as they can no matter what it is they are actually selling.

I think that the “cloud” term is already so amorphous and “polluted” that it’s going to mean whatever people want it to mean. Seriously, from my perspective most of the dialog I see on “cloud” is about esoteric definition – not pragmatic solution. Executives, who write the checks, do not have the attention span to discuss/understand/care about esoterica – they want cost-effective solutions to problems *now*…and if they can tell the Board that it’s “Cloud Technology” so much the better. That, my friend, is a marketing guys wet dream.

Personally, I think I’d rather see people talk in simpler terms about the solutions they are building and the use cases they support. I’d rather talk about the assumptions, risks, and capabilities of a solution set than what it should be labeled. Perhaps I am being naive but I suspect the solutions that provide the best perceived value will be the ones that win – no matter what we call them.

OK, take a breath. Drink a Hoffachino. Then, let’s sort it all out… :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: beaker http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10583 beaker Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:23:22 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10583 <blockquote cite="#commentbody-10582"> <strong><a href="#comment-10582" rel="nofollow">James Watters</a> :</strong> <p>…Oh btw, original salesforce and much of what remains was built on traditional Oracle DB and big Iron, Its what they call a “transitional fossil” <img src="http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley"> </p> </blockquote> Right, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned about the association of the EC2-like assumptions of IaaS delivering SaaS versus the reality that many SaaS offerings (that have been in place for some time) are monolithic in nature given their evolution.

James Watters :

…Oh btw, original salesforce and much of what remains was built on traditional Oracle DB and big Iron, Its what they call a “transitional fossil” :)

Right, that’s what I was referring to when I mentioned about the association of the EC2-like assumptions of IaaS delivering SaaS versus the reality that many SaaS offerings (that have been in place for some time) are monolithic in nature given their evolution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: James Watters http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10582 James Watters Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:06:24 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10582 ...Oh btw, original salesforce and much of what remains was built on traditional Oracle DB and big Iron, Its what they call a "transitional fossil" :) …Oh btw, original salesforce and much of what remains was built on traditional Oracle DB and big Iron, Its what they call a “transitional fossil” :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: James Watters http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10579 James Watters Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:58:13 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10579 For me this is a pay the piper kind of moment for "cloud". The phenomena as a marketing and market term got so huge so fast because it was a big-tent. Loosely, it meant something you used to have to worry about customizing and scaling yourself coming from a networkish service. The rightful 'red herring' cloud is hype argument therefore is "bah, this is ASP part 2." If we aren't careful we are going to have to keep talking about definitions to pay the big tent rent..... I actually took a little stand against IaaS this week for this reason, I don't love the association with SaaS.. http://bit.ly/4R6Rc ....but I'm probably spitting into the wind. For me this is a pay the piper kind of moment for “cloud”. The phenomena as a marketing and market term got so huge so fast because it was a big-tent. Loosely, it meant something you used to have to worry about customizing and scaling yourself coming from a networkish service. The rightful ‘red herring’ cloud is hype argument therefore is “bah, this is ASP part 2.”

If we aren’t careful we are going to have to keep talking about definitions to pay the big tent rent…..

I actually took a little stand against IaaS this week for this reason, I don’t love the association with SaaS.. http://bit.ly/4R6Rc ….but I’m probably spitting into the wind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: beaker http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10578 beaker Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:44:25 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10578 ...and quite honestly, despite how I might describe myself, I *am* one of those marketing people -- one way or another. I think Erik's challenge of my assertion really helped unearth a bit of a definitional quandary. There is an inconsistency in the SaaS definition as it relates to the rest of the stack. It was clear in my taxonomy diagram when the service was a SaaS replacement for IaaS, but actually contradicts many of the traditional SaaS folks who are branding themselves as Cloud. I always thought the problem I had with the definition was the other way 'round. /Hoff …and quite honestly, despite how I might describe myself, I *am* one of those marketing people — one way or another.

I think Erik’s challenge of my assertion really helped unearth a bit of a definitional quandary. There is an inconsistency in the SaaS definition as it relates to the rest of the stack. It was clear in my taxonomy diagram when the service was a SaaS replacement for IaaS, but actually contradicts many of the traditional SaaS folks who are branding themselves as Cloud.

I always thought the problem I had with the definition was the other way ’round.

/Hoff

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Armorguy http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205&cpage=1#comment-10577 Armorguy Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:36:49 +0000 http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/blog/?p=1205#comment-10577 This is going to sound a bit, I don't know, simplistic but I think that (in the end) that the market will determine what "cloud" is... (We've talked about this before I think in the context of what the standards will be). I think that right now the marketing folks - right, wrong, indifferent - are driving this train. The marketing organizations are competing to ensure that their message of cloud gets in front of the right decision maker first. Once that happens and consensus of what cloud "should be" develops then that consensus will drive what cloud "is". But, more to the point your raised, I think we do need to be open to expanding the idea of what cloud is because the marketing folks are doing it as we speak. NIST documentation - while interesting - isn't going to make the choices. People who write checks for implementations will.... Cheers! This is going to sound a bit, I don’t know, simplistic but I think that (in the end) that the market will determine what “cloud” is… (We’ve talked about this before I think in the context of what the standards will be).

I think that right now the marketing folks – right, wrong, indifferent – are driving this train. The marketing organizations are competing to ensure that their message of cloud gets in front of the right decision maker first. Once that happens and consensus of what cloud “should be” develops then that consensus will drive what cloud “is”.

But, more to the point your raised, I think we do need to be open to expanding the idea of what cloud is because the marketing folks are doing it as we speak. NIST documentation – while interesting – isn’t going to make the choices. People who write checks for implementations will….

Cheers!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>