Cloud Manifesto: Is Microsoft Afraid of Rain?
|
News Commentary. Yes, the company fears a standards storm outside of its control. But will the standards be open? |
Last night, Steve Martin, senior director of Microsoft developer platform management, blogged about a so-called "Cloud Manifesto" being developed by unidentified authors, whose ranks are rumored to include Amazon, Google and IBM.
For lots of reasons, enterprise computing is moving to the cloud. Among them:
- Manageability
- Easy dissemination of newest software improvements
- Conceptually lower costs
- Informational access anytime, anywhere and on anything
But for all the talk about cloud computing, enterprise adoption is nascent. Microsoft is making massive investments in cloud computing infrastructure, but the company feels left out, or perhaps cut out, of standards discussions based on Steve's blog post. He makes a surprising case that Microsoft is a big supporter of open standards and processes, whereas "Cloud Manifesto" supporters aren't. Really now?
Steve blogs:
Microsoft has enjoyed a long and productive history working with many companies regarding standardization projects; a great example being the [Web standards] work which we continue to help evolve.
I would like to sit down with Steve and watch his face and body language while making the statement. Microsoft doesn't get enough credit for advancing Web standards. But the standards usually come on terms favorable to Microsoft.
Steve continues:
When the center of gravity is standards and interoperability, we are even more enthusiastic because we believe these are the key to the long term success for the industry, as we are demonstrating through a variety of technologies such as Silverlight, Internet Explorer 8, and the Azure Services Platform.
All three products push standards on Microsoft's terms, Azure by far the most, if the architecture announced last year tracks to release. Azure is, simply put, a data center-based operating system. Developers would write to the cloud much the same they would Windows on a PC. It's visionary, but by every means proprietary, too.
I must agree with GigaOM's Stacey Higginbotham, who blogged today:
It's ironic that Microsoft is whining about open standards, especially given its own history with proprietary file formats. By opening up a wiki, Microsoft would invite anarchy into the process, possibly scaring away the enterprise customers the Cloud Manifesto backers are trying to attract. But getting a strong group of companies behind an open process can help create open standards on which enterprise customers are willing to bet their IT infrastructure. Maybe that's what Microsoft's trying to avoid.
Microsoft's proposed approach would likely undermine any reasonable discussion about cloud computing standards. Standards bodies move too slowly, and Microsoft knows this. It's why Microsoft independently advances standards, taking advantage of the phenomenon for corporate gain but also for customers' benefits.
Such interpretation makes sense of Steve's frustration with the process:
We were admittedly disappointed by the lack of openness in the development of the Cloud Manifesto. What we heard was that there was no desire to discuss, much less implement, enhancements to the document despite the fact that we have learned through direct experience. Very recently we were privately shown a copy of the document, warned that it was a secret, and told that it must be signed 'as is,' without modifications or additional input. It appears to us that one company, or just a few companies, would prefer to control the evolution of cloud computing.
Silicon Alley Insider's Eric Krangel also observed the irony: "There's a rich irony here that Microsoft, traditionally seen as the stalwart for the cause of closed, proprietary software, is now using traditional open source arguments against its rivals (and makes a good point in doing so)."
Could it be that Cloud Manifesto supporters are doing to Microsoft what it has so often done to them? That's my conclusion. They're taking charge to drive standards much the way Microsoft did in the past and in ways that benefit their technologies and businesses.
Eric rightly explains:
Cloud computing holds the promise of running startups and corporate IT departments with far fewer computers than traditional data centers or even moving processing entirely offsite. With a cloud approach promising lowered costs, moving to a cloud-based architecture is widely expected to be a major focus of IT spending for the next several years. That make[s] a clash of tech titans particularly interesting and important to their bottom lines.
Microsoft may be getting a little payback here from competitors that recognize the importance of controlling standards, as IBM did during the mainframe era and Microsoft for desktop PCs. Would these other companies' approach be any better than Microsoft's? I don't expect so. I believe Steve when he contends that these companies are contriving standards to support their technologies and businesses. Would Microsoft do any better?
I won't answer that question but pose it to you. Please answer in comments or by e-mail.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at gmail.com.]
Comments (16)
Oh please if anything microsoft get too much credit for web standards...
Submitting 3 draft suggestions don't outweigh their web browser holding back the entire world from advancing the web's usability forward.
It's dizzying to think where we might be without IE chained around our freaking necks.
Posted by whatever | March 26, 2009 10:48 PM
What color am i? I can't see myself - Kettle
Posted by Kettle | March 26, 2009 10:51 PM
Microsoft is terrified of anything it can't leverage its Windows & Office monopolies to dominate/control. History has shown they fair rather poorly given a level playing field, hence their paranoia.
Posted by Copernicus | March 26, 2009 10:56 PM
As much as Microsoft does like to control some standards, a lot of standards bodies have spitefully excluded MS from the standards development process purely over the years.
On the other hand some standards bodies were so lame that they stagnated (e.g. the TWAIN committee , which according to legend was so named because they never met) and eventually were thrown over the wall to Microsoft to manage.
If you want to do the best thing for customers in the end then you need to be principled about your standards work. Adobe showed that they have one rule for the world and another for Microsoft with respect to PDF in Office. Microsoft has a vast customer base of end-users and developers (which may dwarf the combined base of all competitors in some categories) and tries to respond to them in a faster timeframe than external bodies may permit. It's a tension between openness and responsiveness that is rarely met by anyone (even outside the computing field). I've worked for companies who bitch and moan about Microsoft even while they try to directly emulate them....
Posted by Mike | March 27, 2009 1:01 AM
These are from a "cloud manifesto" on wikipedia:
1. User centric systems enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
2. Philanthropic initiatives can greatly increase the well-being of mankind.
3. Openness of standards, systems and software empowers and protects users.
4. Transparency fosters trust and accountability; decisions should be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and never be made "behind closed doors".
5. Interoperability ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must be interoperable.
6. Representation of all stakeholders is essential; interoperability and standards efforts should not be dominated by vendor(s).
7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is unacceptable.
8. Evolution is an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may take some time to develop and coalesce.
9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is paramount.
10. Security is fundamental, not optional.
As reported by Mary Jo Foley, a Microsoft representative won't comment on whether these points are in the top-secret "cloud manifesto" Microsoft has been asked to sign.
I thought everybody said nobody can keep a secret?
What kind of power is behind a document that prevents Microsoft’s Senior Director of Development Platform Management Steven Martin from speaking?
One would have to ask Steve Ballmer which of these 10 tenets Microsoft finds so onerous. There seem to be quite a few in there that have run counter to Microsoft's demonstrated way of doing things, so I would have to say "all the above".
I would caution Mister Ballmer to use a rare better judgment and sign what he can see.
It's the things one can't see that end up bringing nightmares into the barn.
Posted by portuno_diamo | March 27, 2009 7:56 AM
If I were IBM or Google, I would not trust that Microsoft would not try to derail these standards. They are only going to embrace, extend and extinguish it like they have tried to do with every single standard that they do not control 100%.
Maybe Microsoft can implement a few standards before they start trying to influence them again.
If you read the blog, you will see that Microsoft are more than capable of adding their comments, but because they do not have direct control or veto powers, they cry and whine that other companies are trying to control standards.
Notice how Steve's principles does not define anything, it looks like it is just designed to stall any sort of standards process. Dragging their heels is a well known and tested tactic to kill standards. They are doing it now with web standards, finishing the last 0.00001% of a 10 year old standard is just MS being passive aggressive.
If the standards are good then everyone will use them, it has nothing to do with companies controlling anything.
Microsoft is not relevant any more, that's why nobody really cares about their views on standards. They have systematically screwed every company in this business over the last 20 years, it is not surprising that those companies do not want much to do with them now.
"Developers would write to the cloud much the same they would Windows on a PC. It's visionary, but by every means proprietary, too."
Visionary in what way? Do you even know how stupid "writing to the cloud" sounds? Azure is just Microsoft getting into the web hosting business with a slightly different API. I have been "writing to the cloud" for the last 10 years.
It was a late (still not released yet) copy of Amazon EC2 services and Google's App Engine. Microsoft's billing and management smells of last century, you should compare them one day.
Posted by billybob | March 27, 2009 8:03 AM
The game is already over. Microsoft is a very late comer to the cloud concepts.
If Microsoft is being "asked" to sign the manifesto yet Microsoft won't talk about what's in the manifesto, you can bet the "secret" is held among the players already signed.
Can anyone name a force that would prevent Microsoft from spilling the beans on the manifesto? Can anyone name a force that would allow Microsoft to spill said beans?
No. I thought not.
In an arbitrary framework, "standards" are an archaic appendage. The framework will be the standard and all who wish to play will either have to sign in to use the framework or be assigned out.
Posted by portuno_diamo | March 27, 2009 8:34 AM
Microsoft has been unsucessful with virtually all its online edeavors. Cloud computing, search, Windows Live. And even when "successful", they always lag behind the leader(s): email, blog services, portal pages etc.
Their Windows/Office dynasty will not last forever. Soon, the O.S. will be irrelevant. Most everything will be run through the browser. I believe then PC manufacturers, businesses and the general public will put the least expensive O.S. on their PC. An O.S. that will actually be superior to Windows in every way: reliability, stability, security, ease of use.
Posted by TonyT | March 27, 2009 9:09 AM
Could based computing is in it's infancy with no standards being published anywhere.The approaches taken is vastly different from let's say Amazon and Microsoft, but I won't be suprised to see IBM, Google, Amazon and the rest to come up with some sort of standard and crying foul at Microsoft. They have successfully done that in the past. Azure Plataform, is vastly different in concept than anything else that's out there.
Posted by Evang | March 27, 2009 10:48 AM
"Azure Plataform, is vastly different in concept than anything else that's out there."
I am sure it is... It's so advanced and different that nobody can explain how Azure differs from the Google App Engine. The only difference that I can see is that with Azure you have to provision servers and keep them around 'just in case' whereas Google works all of that out for you.
Maybe you can go into some more information as to how it is vastly different? I have looked and it looks like another me-too product.
How much will Azure cost? Nobody knows. Maybe that is what is so different, MS cannot work out how to price it without killing themselves or their partners. It is a very fine line AFAICT.
Posted by billybob | March 27, 2009 12:45 PM
http://www.scribd.com/word/full/13710927?access_key=key-j5k0b7eo52h9ss87pcw
This is the draft that they disagree with. The principles are on the last page, I am sure Microsoft does not agree with number 2.
2. Cloud providers must not use their market position to lock customers into their particular platforms and limiting their choice of providers.
Posted by billybob | March 27, 2009 4:23 PM
billybob: "Do you even know how stupid "writing to the cloud" sounds? "
About as stupid as "writing to disk" or "writing to the network". What century are you stuck in?
Posted by Mike | March 27, 2009 6:27 PM
The disk and network are physical devices. The cloud is marketing mumbo jumbo.
If I write to a NAS inside my network, is that writing to the cloud? If I then wrap the NAS in a SOAP wrapper, is that a local cloud? If I then move that machine outside the network, is it a cloud?
Amazon S3 is a reliable, scalable NAS outside the local network. The rest of the services are web hosting with built in restrictive frameworks. Microsoft's 'new' cloud 'OS' is hosted IIS with some extra .NET libraries thrown on top of a virtual machine.
The term cloud is applied to all of them making it a meaningless term.
Joe was speaking about writing to the cloud as an application platform which is equally meaningless, developers write to the .NET framework with some different APIs for Azure, HTML and Javascript. They might even use Silverlight + .NET as the actual development platform. Does that mean that Silverlight is the cloud too?
Posted by billybob | March 27, 2009 8:44 PM
The way Microsoft use the term 'Cloud' they mean that the user doesnt know or care where the storage is. Essentially its invisible to the user, so Microsoft can use a server in Kerdistan or a server in Russia, wherever is cheaper for hosting. The upside to Microsoft is that as long as the API 's stay the same no one knows where their data is, which is to say your data is held hostage by them. Also another Microsoft idea is if its invisible they can change anything anytime without consulting you. Secrets give them more power and control. Secrets also Leverage their lockin power. What format is your data actually held in? This can change, and can be converted anytime without your knowledge or consent.
Posted by KoppyPoppy | March 27, 2009 10:43 PM
"The upside to Microsoft is that as long as the API 's stay the same no one knows where their data is, which is to say your data is held hostage by them."
Not that any cloud provider is any different. It's a service abstraction. You'll use Microsoft APIs or Amazon APIs or Adobe APIs or Google APIs or ... Many of these APIs are going to look like business services (web-apps) run on the providers' servers and you'll inevitably have as much lock-in as you'll have with a deskbound application.
Posted by Mike | March 28, 2009 3:18 AM
Read the Azure website, it has little to do with storage or not caring where it is stored. One of the FAQs is "Can I host a cloud service in my own organization?". Obviously people do care where their data is stored. Storing it in a cloud service is about redundancy, scalability and firing your internal IT.
None of that changes the fact that "writing to the cloud" is nonsense, you write to their individual APIs in the same way you have always done. Even Amazon's EC2 is hosted web space with a standard OS and web site writing tools like ASP/PHP. Then you are using other existing APIs, does that mean that Amazon EC2 is hosting not a cloud service?
If you read through each service you will see that they are very different. Google does not offer a web API for their App Engine, whereas some of Amazon's services are 100% REST based and designed to be accessed from other locations. Google's datastore is only accessible from their Python library on their hosted service. Microsoft offers a full SQL instance but you have to choose your resources types in advance. Amazon allows you to host within Windows or Linux and you have to set up the box in the same way you do with a dedicated host.
The only thing they share is that most of the data and computing power is designed for writing websites. Then we are all dealing with HTML, Javascript, Flash and Silverlight. Those are the things that we are "writing to".
FTP is a protocol for writing to the cloud, shall we include that in our massive nebulous definition too? We have had that for years and years, nobody was writing to FTP in the same way they write to the Win32 API.
I think that lockin is not inevitable, if the APIs for Google's Model were made public then you could move code from Google to any other provider that offers Python and that API. The Win32 API is highly contrived, secret and ever changing so people cannot reimplement it easily, a 'cloud' API could be made open from the start.
Currently lockin is least in Amazon, and most in Google. Microsoft is somewhere in the middle. If the Google API was standardized so that anyone can implement it (like they do with HTML) then they would move instantly to being least lockin.
Posted by billybob | March 28, 2009 11:39 AM