My Photo

« Net Neutrality: They're too mad, we're too happy | Main | Getting out of my Skinner Box »

March 06, 2015

Comments

David Mytton

If you're comparing pure cloud compute (e.g. EC2, Google Compute Engine) costs then it's almost always cheaper to run your own environment in a colo facility. You can get very low rates on commodity hardware either prepaid or leased. Indeed, this is often the way companies scale, ending up with running their own kit.

The thing with WalMart is that's not where it ends. They're building a lot of custom systems on top of those components, for example their own DBaaS. This is where the scale of AWS or Google comes in - they have the resources to dedicate to building and optimising software projects that are created on top of their already heavily optimised infrastructure, and it's these costs that are much harder to compare.

It includes things like hiring engineering talent, building a new system (or using components from and customising OpenStack), ongoing maintenance, updates, improvements, security, etc. This is where the costs add up. It's the whole SaaS argument - why build something internally that isn't your core business and could be outsourced to someone else who will do a much better job?

Jim Stogdill

Thanks for you comment David. I agree with you. There is no doubt that Walmart and many others are building a lot of stuff (more expensively) than they could get from Amazon (or other places). My post tries to give one of the answers to your last question. I just don't think cost (or price) is the only dynamic at play. I think there is habit, the legal counsel's arguments, control, regulatory concerns and a whole lot of other things in a world where cost is very different, but small on a total-part-of-the-budget basis.

Dmourati

I like the SUV analogy and I appreciate the overall analysis.

I agree price is not the only dynamic to consider. Two additional factors:

1. Elasticity

Think seasonality of demand, scaling up and down, rightsizing and so on. This impacts price but also impacts monitoring, alerting, and repairing because of the law of large numbers.

2. Time to market

Data centers right in your backyard take time to build. Data centers across the globe take much longer. One concept that has stuck with me from Chris Anderson's The Long Tail: "it is easier to move bits than atoms."

swardley

Hi Jim,

Not quite how I remember the conversation. Factors involved in adoption - efficiency in provision, increase in demand (price elasticity effects, long tail of unmet demand, evolution of higher order systems), rate of innovation of new services (ecosystem effects), ability to take advantage of new sources of wealth (development speed, reduced cost of failure), inertia (16 different forms) & competitor actions. When talking about the shift of infrastructure from product to utility then all these factors come into play.

Efficiency of Amazon's provision. Do remember that since IT is price elastic and Amazon has a likely constraint e.g. acquiring land and building data centres then Amazon will certainly have to manage its pricing carefully i.e. if it dropped pricing too quickly then demand could exceed supply. So, you need to consider future pricing as well. In all likelihood AWS EC2 is operating at 60%+ margin but this will reduce over time.

Increase in demand. One of most amusing cloud 'tales' is the one that it'll save money. Infrastructure is a million times cheaper today than 30 years ago but has my budget dropped a million fold in that time? No. We don't tend to save money, we tend towards doing more stuff. This is Jevons Paradox. What we need to be mindful of is that our competitors will do more stuff. Which is why you need to be careful about future pricing. If your IT budget is 2% of total budget and your competitor has a 10x advantage then you might shrug it off as a small part of the budget. But, your competitor is likely to end up doing more stuff and suddenly (just to keep up) you'll find you're spending a lot more than 2%.

Rate of Innovation of new service. There are numerous ecosystem games to play in a utility world (such as ILC) which enables a provider to simultaneously be innovative, efficient and customer focused. This seems to be happening with Amazon as all three of those metrics appear to be accelerating. This provides direct benefit for the users of that environment in terms of new service release.

Ability to take advantage of new source of wealth. Key here is speed and reducing the cost of failure both of which a utility provider offering volume operations of good enough but standard commodity components provides.

Inertia. We all have inertia to change (loss of previous investment, changes in governance / practice, loss of social capital, loss of political capital etc - 16 different forms in total). There will be a counter to any change

HOWEVER ...

The competitive pressure to adapt are often not linear but have exponential effects. If an adaptation gives competitors greater efficiency, increasing access to new services, increases their ability to take advantage of new sources of wealth then as more of your competitors adapt then the pressure on you mounts. This creates the Red Queen Effect (prof van. valen).

As a result these forms of change are not linear but exponential. It can take 10 years for such a technology change to reach 3% of the market and a further 5 years to hit 50%. Because of inertia to change and due to its non linear nature many companies (especially competing vendors) get caught out. However, in all such markets there are usually small niches that remain.

There is also no reason why commoditisation has to lead to centralisation. Many of the forces can be countered. Unfortunately due to the incredibly sucky play of often past executives within competitors then in this case centralisation (to AWS, MSFT and Google a distant third) seems very likely. Some of those past executives were warned in 2008 about how to fragment the market by creating a price war with AWS clones forcing demand beyond Amazon's ability to supply due to the data centre constraint. It's shocking that they were so blinded that they've got large companies into this state.

So,

1) Will infrastructure centralise to those players of AWS, MSFT and GooG? Yes plus clones of those environment. Competitor's have shown pretty poor strategic play in the past and this is now the most likely outcome.

2) Will everything go to public infrastructure clouds? No. There will be niches. There is also inertia to the change but the pressure will mount (Red Queen) as competitors adopt cloud. The change usually catches people out due to its exponential nature.

3) Is it just price? No. Multiple factors involved. Price is one of those factors.

4) Why is Walmart building a modest sized private cloud? Probably because it's concerned over Amazon's encroachment into its own retail industry. In all likelihood they will end up adopting Azure or GooG over time.

PerlDean

The public vs private debate is more or less that same as commercial vs open source.

Why would anyone buy an Oracle database when PostgreSQL (and others) are so excellent and free?

The answers are many. But they do.

Jim Stogdill

Thanks for the comments everyone. Simon, you are right that I didn't consider all of the reasons why public cloud will be important, I only looked at price. I meant this is as a simple analysis that says "no matter how cheap cloud computing gets, even if it's free, that won't on its own be a compelling argument for everyone in the face of real or perceived loss of control." The point of my back of the envelope calculation was just to show that the numbers aren't so ridiculously compelling that control will end up being a less important factor.

I agree that elasticity is important - and in cases where the compute required isn't connected to customer records etc. it will be easier to take advantage of.

I reached out to a friend of mine (who will remain anonymous) with the question "Are you guys considering moving anything to public cloud?" Here is his partial response:

"Public cloud has our security people in a frenzy. We are so risk averse to putting client sensitive data in the cloud. It has been such a battle to even have the conversation. I think we are slowly warming up to the idea that we can do this and that the industry is moving this way. It really comes down to what kind of data. The moment it touches client account information, it becomes off limits. Segmentation data about our market, firm data, etc, those tend to be okay but is it worth it is the question. Worth isn't just the cost of moving it from the data center to the cloud but the dev to unwind it or build new services. In general, I think our data center costs after a zillion years of doing this are very low."

pwb

Sweet spot? https://www.brkt.com

Keith Shinn

One other point, typically there are additional cost beyond the AWS charges to running an app. those cost are typically included in recovery cost for and enterprise but not considered in the comparison. In general, i think this depends. If enterprises continue to operate as they have in the past the answer would be simple Simon is right, but if the enterprise learns from AWS, use open source model to develop shared tools, then it may still be a race.

either way nice thoughtful write up!

The comments to this entry are closed.