One Cloud to Rule them All

One Cloud to rule them all, One Cloud to find them, One Cloud to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. - Apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien

It is amusing to me that IBM was in the Cloud business so long ago, they had no idea that is what they were doing. The poor old, left for dead mainframe that never quite got extinct is still plugging away with so many VMs on it it you could probably replace an entire data center with one. Well one HUGE one.

It is commodity time again. I got, you got, he got a Cloud. Big deal.

What's in your Cloud is the big deal. No matter your business, if you looked outside your office to the Internet and saw tools you could use, why not just use them? I guarantee yoru employees are, and within your network and you may not even know about it...or care.


You want simpler, easier collaboration tools. Faster networks, more options, better personalization choices and customization flexibility. You also want it for free. As the old saying goes, pick 2 out of 3.

If Internet access was truly ubiquitous and nominal fee based, like your water bill, that would change everything. Google and Apple among others see this as a forthcoming future and are ahead of the game.

Where are you? Where is your IT? How will you stay modern when your old systems are legacy after a few months or in modern parlance, last rev.

One Cloud to rule them all? You bet and it may be coming sooner than anyone thinks.

Cloud vs. Licenses

Been debating this for quite some time but it comes up quite often.
On one hand, some IBMers get paid on selling licenses, others get paid on Cloud initiatives.
On the other hand, as an example, Lotus Connections IBMers would prefer if clients bought licenses instead of LL Engage.
This short lived cannibalization of sales and internal posturing is not unique to IBM. Microsoft has similar issues, especially when confronted with losing major money from their #1 money maker, Office.
So what is a Business Partner to do? Naturally offer clients the best of what is available and make the proper choice. Not just select the one that pays more commission. And on that note, Cloud options pay much less, as if there was any doubt.

So what can the mothership do to resolve this dilemma?

One thing to do is compensate everyone, internally and externally, equally for the products. Really, what benefit does it serve to have it any other way?

Another option is to provide equality to all products and let the PC side be equal to the Cloud side. If someone owns one license, they should get one Cloud account for free. I understand this may reduce revenue, but this also provides an excellent way to work in the interim while companies try to decide their future directions, or more importantly when they will make the leap, if ever. Charging twice is just not a nice option.

Lastly, applications are needed. No offense to the great marketers out there, but just going to the cloud, without a real application, I do not consider social media or Office related tools as applications, doesn't have enough excitement by itself.

What would be exciting? Let your imagination run wild.

CIO Magazine Email survey

I was just asked to provide my input for a survey which asked:

What features of functions are lacking within your company's current messaging environment? What do you see as the potential benefits of cloud computing? Let us know your thoughts in our new 6 question quick poll below. Results will be posted in the Downloads section later this month.

But it really is a survey about Cloud computing. As usual a flawed poll from the CIO group. Why is it so hard for them to accept that some systems really do work well?

At least they included Lotus Notes and Domino as an option this time.

They asked in 3 different ways about problems in your email system, then turned around and asked why you were moving to the Cloud. If only this was the truth.

If the majority of companies run Exchange as so many claim, then if CIO believes you hate it, that would imply that Exchange has issues. But if you ask about it, no one claims any issues at all! So what's going on?

The questions asked about what's wrong are as usual generic and could be any company without an intelligent admin. But there is the problem. They should have asked about their admins and if they are any good or need training, or if they ever provide them training or if they resolve issues efficiently. Maybe even ask how much is invested annually to maintaining it?

But then you get to where CIO is going, costs reduction. What if you only analyze the Cloud by costs reduction, is that fair or responsible? I understand there are tax/budget implications for capital expense versus expenses themselves. But there is also a state of mind for your business that just may backfire, even if it is only once a year and for some companies, however malcontent their infrastructure is, it's theirs and they want to keep it that way.

Maybe next time they will ask if one would stay with their vendor or switch or bring in outside parties to manage it, correctly. Because if they don't, wouldn't you fire them like employees? Sadly no, because the contracts are written to guarantee too much, in favor of the vendor.

Naturally I said, truthfully, that I have no problems with our mail infrastructure and only would think about the Cloud from a cost reduction (hardware, electric, etc.).

Cloud thoughts from CIO's

I attended the local CIO Council annual event which is State of the CIO with Gary Beach publisher emeritus of CIO magazine.

Nice attendance, over 150 I guess, many staffing people. A few IBMers, didn't see any Microsoft people, but there were at least 3 Microsoft BPs with tables. I opted not to have a table this year for various reasons and they didn't have any space anyway.

The discussion after Gary's session was a Q/A with 4 CIO's. What was interesting to note for me was 2 of them are large Lotus Notes/Domino shops, one a client of mine. The third was from a large software company based here and the 4th represented some of the local sports teams.

When a discussion about "The Cloud" came up, my client said that it made no sense whatsoever for them, the cost($) was too great. Plus they have their own infrastructure and like managing everything in house. Similar to my discussions previously about this idea that if you have built your own infrastructure why would you drop it now?

The exact opposite came from the software company. In fact they sounded like a company on the verge of death or the verge of being reborn.

They have employees bring in their own private laptops to work, no more company supplied ones. The company does provide some monetary amount in return. Can't imagine they have a hardware help desk anymore, so maybe its just about saving some money.

They didn't say anyone could work at home, which would be a better solution in my mind.

They also started to use their own software for their benefit. This is equally odd since one would expect a company to use the solutions they provide, if for no other reason than to show proof of concept or to help the sales people feel more comfortable in selling the solution.

I couldn't help but feel that perhaps they were barely treading water looking for any life preserver. Who knows.

The Cloud has Closed and Google has some prices

In an article I read in a magazine, (remember those?)called Information Week this week they discuss a Cloud company that is folding. Coghead.

Won't bore you with the details but a new business will be popping up from Binary Tree probably any day now announcing how to migrate from Gmail.

Anyway, Google pricing in the article is interesting:

With Google's first-time payment structure for the previously free-with-quotas Google App Engine, customers pay 10 cents per CPU core hour, 10 cents per gigabyte of traffic in, 12 cents per gigabyte of traffic out, 15 cents per gigabyte of data stored per month, and $1 per 10,000 e-mails sent.

EDITED to just say
Once you let someone or something else manage for you it will cost you in the long run, maybe not today or tomorrow but....

Fud Buster Friday # 31 - Hosted Mail is the killer app

Microsoft SVP Chris Capossela puts it bluntly: "Customers will write us bigger checks."

from this Fortune article. Thanks to Ed for posting it this week.

Couldn't resist putting this quote up here. Hate Microsoft? No. Jealous. I wish everyone bought our service and products so easily. Moving on...

Foolish mortals, it's a new world, full of fun, excitement, twitter and someday soon Football again.

I start this by admitting I have been and always will be a strong proponent of email but as my clients start asking for more hosted options I am wondering if hosting is the convenience people prefer because the cost savings really aren't there...yet.

Your world is not your own any more, everyone is screaming at you to use an ASP, I mean, an SaaS, no I mean a Host/Hosted facility, no Microsoft, no wait Google or IBM, no "The Cloud".

Save money right? Cut expenses. Reduce your budget. Fire some one, anyone, except yourself, of course.

In 2009 you have a choice to get off the Microsoft merry go round, but is Google a better answer? Desktop or laptop or netbook? Phone? What drives a company like GSK to make the choices they make?

The bottom line still is applications, not email. Email, while important, is secondary to the spreadsheets, documents, databases and yes presentation software.

What is the real killer app? I would argue wireless technology as a whole.
In Fahrenheit 451 the idea of a wall being a video screen seemed futuristic, today it's a reality and soon may be one for everyone, ok maybe not yet but soon enough.

Virtually unlimited drive space is also a killer app. We may be seeing a dawn of a new era for online everything, but who will make it happen well, not first.

Does IBM want to play in this space as Duffbert posited? Should they? Symphony is not hosted yet although it is conceivable but is it enough?

Should Google win? It's not about winning for them, it's about the greater good( I know some feel otherwise) of the world. Microsoft really doesn't care about the world, not in the same way. And maybe Redmond is experiencing some of the 90's IBM issues.

Perhaps someone else out there is thinking they can take over this space, maybe they can, but lead with an application other than email...the world has enough religions.

What Costs Get Saved When Going to the Cloud?

Really, do you or your clients know?
Would you be able to provide a valid and true number, or at least a reasonable estimate?
Is Google/Microsoft/IBM or "Fred's Cloud" really a cheaper more efficient solution?
On what do you base this?

Ed Brill's post had some comments which I was going to reply, but instead wanted to expand my answer.

What is really being saved is the question of course.
No company stops needing their telecom, wiring, firewall, routers etc just because they go to the Cloud. In fact one could argue some of these INCREASE.
Nor do they stop needing their administrators or help desk or support staff. Although you may be able to drop a few people or move them to a different project, they can't all be user/password admins.

Possibly the costs of some hardware(the onsite servers), SAN/Drive space and some related items, plus NOS cost and licenses, and their support/maintenance contracts are what is saved by going to the cloud.

What other costs are there you ask that could get saved? Backup solutions and costs, archiving, spam filters, antivirus which all have fees or maintenance.

Need more? Electricity, Real Estate/Data Center Space, A/C requirements.

Still need more reasons? Leave some in the comments.
What am I missing or not thinking of right now?

I will put together an ROI for it all once I have inputs from everyone.

There is no price for headaches, they are priceless. Going to the cloud may limit the ones you feel today, but will create other ones potentially even greater or worse. (Worse would be when Fred's Cloud goes under)

Sorry to hear about your Small...

Don;t want spam traps to block my post but you might think this is going down a path we don't want to visit.

Well let's say we keep it clean and above board, for the minute.

Following another excellent post by Duffbert I found a gem to discuss in this article from Computer World.

Google gives you a 25GB mail file when you pay the $50/yr for their GAPE product as discussed previously.

Microsoft in their new found Cloud of Azure claims:

There are limitations in Exchange Online. Mailboxes default to just 1GB. Every additional gigabyte costs $2 per gigabyte per month. The maximum size is 4GB, despite the service being built with Exchange 2007, which supports mailboxes up to 16GB.

The 4GB limit is "to ensure the best performance in Outlook," said Betz. "Customers we talk to tell us that overly large inboxes create many problems for their organizations," which have to comply with rules around compliance and e-mail discovery.

Duffbert quoted this part too, but my interest is in the 2nd paragraph, overly large inboxes create problems? You don't say? So the answer is to limit the users to 4GB to prevent their inbox from getting too big?

HUH?!

Domino also doesn't like very large inboxes but that never stops you from having a 10gb file or larger, although your antivirus will not be happy with you nor will your autoindexing function as they slow down to a crawl but traffic in Manhattan has been the same for decades too.

Don't you think better mail filtering or even end user training could help?
No, just quota them to death, no wait charge them for it too. Google doesn't seem to have this problem....or do they?

By the way, Microsoft charges you for this benefit $15/month but I guess with the extra 3 GB that would add an additional $6 so $21 a month over the year is $252.
$202 MORE than Google is and you get what in return?

I know someone reading this is saying, yes but IBM just did the same thing. Well yes and no, IBM is billing the usage at $8/month, still more than Google no question but you get to keep your Notes apps and mail. At $46 more per user that's not funny either and the real question, if you are an SMB is what is more important to you, cost savings, reliability, long term leadership or ease and efficiency.

Sharepoint, The Cloud and the Environment

An article in Information Week, which appeared slightly different in print from the online version covered some pros and cons.

The software's Swiss Army knife approach helps companies create more useful intranets, set up document sharing, offer blogs and wikis, and build a richer online company directory. This boundary-blurring nature is part of its appeal..

J. Nicholas Hoover, the author of the article could be describing Domino but no, it's Sharepoint.

While IT manages master page layouts, business units can build one-off sites without IT's help. "This is why SharePoint has taken off like wildfire

General Mills Manager of .NET

So how do we counter this? What can we do? What should Lotus do?

Sharepoint is already under the covers, maybe even paid for in licensing, so why not use it? Sound familiar? It should, Lotus asks the same question, and has for years.

When you put Domino into your organization, you had, from early on, the capability to do so much more, but few understood it all or do today. The discussion databases that predate wiki's, the Team Room's that predate most collaboration software in the market, plus a built in messaging system and strong server options all provides a great package.

Now it looks like companies want to go modular. Server for this, a server for that.

Doesn't this go against the thinking of modern times?
Less power consumption, fewer servers, reduced carbon footprint, fewer Administrators, reduced expenses?

And now The Cloud hovers ever closer and may provide the myth of all the above.
You as a customer will experience all the benefits just listed, yet your provider/host of Cloud Computing just took it all on.

How are they doing with it? What are they doing to minimize it?

Does this interest you? Will it make any difference for you to go with IBM, Amazon or anyone else?