This post is the final post laying out a rethinking of how we view user and buyer motivations for public and private clouds.
In part 1, I laid out the “magic cube” that showed a more discrete technological breakdown of cloud deployments (see that for the MSH, MDH, MDO, UDO key). In part 2, I piled higher and deeper business vectors onto the cube showing that the cost value of the vertices was not linear. The costs were so unequal that they pulled our nice isometric cube into a cone.
To help make sense of cloud gravity, I’m adding a qualitative measure of friction.
Friction represents the cloud consumer’s willingness to adopt the requirements of our cloud vertices. I commonly hear people say they are not willing to put sensitive data “in the cloud” or they are worried about a “lack of security.” These practical concerns create significant friction against cloud adoption; meanwhile, being able to just “throw up” servers (yuck!) and avoiding IT restrictions make it easy (low friction) to use clouds.
Historically, it was easy to plot friction vs. cost. There was a nice linear trend where providers simply lowered cost to overcome friction. This has been fueling the current cloud boom.
The magic cube analysis shows another dynamic emerging because of competing drivers from management and isolation. The dramatic saving from outsource management are inhibited by the high friction for giving up data protection, isolation, control, and performance minimums. I believe that my figure, while pretty, dramatically understates the friction gap between dedicated and shared hosting. This tension creates a non-linear trend in which substantial customer traction will follow the more expensive offerings. In fact, it may be impossible to overcome this friction with pricing pressure.
I believe this analysis shows that there’s a significant market opportunity for clouds that have dedicated resources yet are still managed and hosted by a trusted 3rd party. On the other hand, this gravity well could turn out to be a black hole money pit. Like all cloud revolutions, the timid need not apply.
Post Script: Like any marketing trend, there must be a name. These clouds are not “private” in the conventional sense and I cringe at using “hybrid” for anything anymore. If current public clouds are like hotels (or hostels) then these clouds are more like condos or managed community McMansions. I think calling them “cloud shards” is very crisp, but my marketing crystal ball says “try again.” Suggestions?
Pingback: Getting cozy with “Adjacent Services” « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: Cloud Business Vectors « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog