OT: Cloud Computing is coming to ...

Michael Semcheski mhsemcheski at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 02:42:08 UTC 2010

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> wrote:
> When people invest their money into something, they want to be "in charge" of
> it. And if they are supposed to share it with others, there is bound to be a
> lot of friction.

One of the key ideas that makes Amazon's EC2 and S3 successful is that
you pay for what you use, and you can stop paying whenever you want.
And most importantly, there are no upfront costs.  If you're a cloud
user (the Dean of Engineering in your example), you did not directly
provide the capital that got the cloud built.  All a user provides is
an account number to which they're billed for what they use.

The idea is that a large organization should be able to make a decent
guess as to how much cloud they need.  They borrow money or make a
capital expenditure to build the cloud.  Then, they get tenants from
all over their enterprise to use the cloud and pay for it one hour and
one gigabyte at a time.

The cloud is like an office building.  The first tenant doesn't have
to pay for the whole thing.  Somebody has an idea of what the demand
is for office space.  They build it and charge rent to recoup their
investment.  If a tenant leaves, they try to find another to take
their place.

Any large organization (be it a public corporation, University, or
government entity) can find a large pile of cash or borrow it to make
a capital expenditure.  And they will, if they are confident it will
save them money.  The initial purchase doesn't have to be funded
directly from somebody's grant or product X.  Also, a single grant or
department probably won't have the access to financing that the
enterprise does to build their cloud.  That's why many definitions say
clouds are multi-tenant.  Its not the same as sharing and trying to
play nice.

More information about the users mailing list