Charles Makes a Point (or Two)

Marketing is a great thing, but sometimes it just goes too far.  All of this "cloud" talk is a prime example.

The discussion around cloud reminds me of the proverbial spring/summer activity of laying in the yard as kids and watching the clouds go by, calling out what it is you think this or that cloud is. 

"Oooh, look at that one, it's a dragon!" 
"What? that's not a dragon, that's a turtle!"
"Uh, huh, but now it's a sheep!"

The cloud is what you want it to be, because it is a giant nebulous concoction of water vapor and ice crystals, constantly changing shape and direction as dictated by the wind.  It isn't any one thing.

That's great for childhood games, but as an architect and a consultant, I've just about had enough of all this.  IT is a concrete thing.  Technology is black and white (or 1 and 0 if you prefer).  Nebulousness (is that a word?) does not fit in this environment.  You don't get to say to the CEO, "well, it was sort of online, depending on what your definition of 'online' is" (or depending upon your definition of 'is' for you politicos out there).  It's on or it's off and the business doesn't care why it was off if they needed it on. 

Every IT vendor out there has some definition of 'cloud'.  Literally, every single one.  Look at the web sites.  Everyone can tell you how they fit into the 'cloud', but not a single one of them can tell you what the 'cloud' really is.  Of course, VMware and Cisco think they have a good definition, as long as it means running everything on the Cisco unified compute platform with VMware.  That's the cloud?  Hmmm, I thought 6 months ago that was called consolidation.  Amazon thinks they have a definition, as long as it means shipping your data out to their server and storage farm to run compute cycles in their data center.  You know, I thought that was just good old-fashioned outsourcing.  SAP's got a definition, EMC has one, HP, IBM, everybody out there has one, and they are all centric to the products they've been trying to sell everyone for years.  Yes, there are some unique aspects to some of the products (EMC Atmos comes to mind), but for the most part, it's all the same with re-packaging.  vSphere and vCloud are ESX server with some really neat new features (and some completely undelivered as of yet promises), but it's still ESX Server.  The Cisco unified compute platform is servers.  Granted, an interesting architecture and management footprint, but let's be real here, they're servers.

What the 'cloud' really is in the IT context is the same thing it is in real life—vapor.  It's the second coming of the xSP model that will save all businesses from the pain of having an IT department.  I said to someone delivering a cloud pitch the other day "did you activate a time warp just before you came in here and take me back to 1999/2000?  These are the same concepts that were pitched at me about ASPs, data center outsourcing, and eCommerce 10 years ago!"  At least it sure feels like it to me.

Over the next few posts, I'm going to keep delivering my take on this topic, if nothing else to flush out some things and vent a little.  I think that there is too much hype here, and we're headed to another bubble bursting if we aren't careful.  The foundation of a technological breakthrough requires more than just a whizz-bang technology.  It requires sound planning, terrific execution, and a goal.  I don't think that anyone talking about cloud is providing those.  There's a lot of theory, a lot of talking, but not a lot of reality.  I'm all for open discussion, but could we maybe back off the child-like excitement that IT is going to be saved and suddenly align with the business based on the 'cloud'?