There's another theory. Both Microsoft and Amazon are direct competitors to Apple in mobile. Why not attack them from the underside? Why not embrace and extinguish? Fool them into playing along and then unleash a big surprise that you don't need them anymore? You're self-sustaining with your own technology, your own APIs, your own data centers?
Apple needs to start somewhere and it's smart for them to utilize existing infrastructure so they can provide a reliable foundation to grow on. But this is just one step in a long journey.
It seems to me that proclamation is more about not having to personally deal with Microsoft Products sets on a day-to-day basis. On that basis, this Azure/Amazon revelation should really be a non-issue. Apple will always be the facade, what backs it should be irrelevant. Just like iTunes.
For some reason it's got people on both sides frothing at the mouth. For the fanboys, some clearly perceive this as some sort of Crying Game realisation. Truth is, as pointed out, Apple really is only at the design end of the game. None of their stuff is end to end. And with capable third parties able to fill the gaps seamlessly, why should they even try to be end-to-end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I'm sure that some do, but to be fair, I suspect that even the most rabid of them are referring to the hardware they own or use and the software running on it.
As many posters have pointed out, it is kind of silly to expect Apple to design and manufacture everything that they use. It would not be good business in many cases, and good business is where they excel.
Let's also not forget the cries of "Even Microsoft can't use their own stuff" on this forum when it was discovered that certain Microsoft commercials were produced on Macs. Would the same people who are excusing Apple for not using its own products for iCloud servers be just as willing to excuse Microsoft?
it works both ways. Don't some Apple lovers also make a big deal and proclaim how 100 percent free from Microsoft they are because they never use any Microsoft Office products or never have to run Windows applications on their Macs? Yet they neglect things like their internet service provider which may run on Microsoft, their power company which may run on Microsoft, the house they live in which was probably designed on Windows PCs, the cars they drive which were probably designed on Windows PCs, the banks they keep their money in, the hospitals where they receive medical treatment, and so forth.
There is an argument to be made to be free of any MS UI (eg, ditching MS Office but still using MS Exchange).
I don't get the comparison. Both Microsoft and Apple make a consumer OS. Ads are created on consumer PCs. Apple and Microsoft both compete in this market.
Apple doesn't compete with companies like Oracle, Sun, HP, IBM, and Microsoft offering corporate data management services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
Let's also not forget the cries of "Even Microsoft can't use their own stuff" on this forum when it was discovered that certain Microsoft commercials were produced on Macs. Would the same people who are excusing Apple for not using its own products for iCloud servers be just as willing to excuse Microsoft?
Let's also not forget the cries of "Even Microsoft can't use their own stuff" on this forum when it was discovered that certain Microsoft commercials were produced on Macs. Would the same people who are excusing Apple for not using its own products for iCloud servers be just as willing to excuse Microsoft?
The difference is that Microsoft was advertising and promoting their product as being great for professional graphics users at the same time their commercials were made on Macs. Apple is not (and never has) promoted their product as being marketed for Enterprise server applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I don't get the comparison. Both Microsoft and Apple make a consumer OS. Ads are created on consumer PCs. Apple and Microsoft both compete in this market.
The difference is that Microsoft ALSO competes in the Enterprise server market. Apple doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
If true, I am disappointed in Apple. They have the capital to do this right, getting ~20-100 co-lo sites across the globe and keeping a dedicated team working on it. It can even be a business unit they spin off later.
Apple has the capital to make sailboats right, too. That doesn't mean that they should.
One of the big lessons from Apple's performance for the past 10 years is that you should focus on what you do well and not mess with things that don't play to your strength.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
That's true, just not relevant here.
Mac users are now dependent on Windows operating systems for cloud storage,, hence my point.
Mac users have always been dependent on Windows. Power plants, billing from utilities and creditors, airline flight schedules, and a million other things. And that's not likely to change any time soon.
Mac users choose not to use Windows on their own computers, but that doesn't mean that they are not affected by Windows - nor do I know of anyone who ever made that silly claim.
Remember that Apple gets more than two thirds of their income from outside the USA.
Not only that: the potential market outside the USA is 20 times as large as the US market is. So potential growth outside the USA is 20 times that in the US. Add the fact that the US are utterly broke and consequently can't afford expensive toys anymore (watch GPS dying), while the rest of the world, especially China, India, and Brasil, is drowning in cash, and you would have to be blind as a bat to not see where Apple should focus if they know what's good for them and want a chance to survive the US collapse.
The alternative is getting dragged down and sinking with the rest of the US economy.
Apple has fallen in stature if true. In the 20 plus years I have been around computers 2% PC and 98% Mac I learned very early that the Microsoft Corporation was not to be trusted.
It is a matter of public record that MS stands charged and convicted of criminal offences in several parts of the world.
As a consumer I had no intent of every using a cloud service not Apple's and certainly not MS's. I could never just get my mind around trusting my personal data to something as nebulous as a Cloud.
If this rumour is true then it is a sad day, but if it is not true I very much hope Apple will put out the word to that effect very forcefully.
Just a thought! No Matter how clean and fresh smelling you are at the start. Spend a day down in the sewers with other sewer workers. The chances are 100% you shall smell differently at the end of the day.
Does anyone -- ANYONE -- reading this thread know anything about cloud computing?
1. Yes, it's entirely believable and entirely possible that Apple would contract with other cloud infrastructure companies to support the iCloud initiative. If they didn't, they'd be insane. Services like Amazon's AWS are robust, ubiquitous throughout the web, and distributed throughout the globe.
2. Developers build applications that rest in/on AWS or Azure. These are not things used by end users. It will have absolutely no impact on you if the data served by iCloud comes from Apple's single, solitary data center or from a data center regionally closer to you. Indeed, you won't even be able to tell the provenance of the data.
3. If you browse the web at all, you are indirectly using both AWS and Azure constantly. To make ridiculous statements like that above are completely non-sensical.
Does anyone -- ANYONE -- reading this thread know anything about cloud computing?
1. Yes, it's entirely believable and entirely possible that Apple would contract with other cloud infrastructure companies to support the iCloud initiative. If they didn't, they'd be insane. Services like Amazon's AWS are robust, ubiquitous throughout the web, and distributed throughout the globe.
2. Developers build applications that rest in/on AWS or Azure. These are not things used by end users. It will have absolutely no impact on you if the data served by iCloud comes from Apple's single, solitary data center or from a data center regionally closer to you. Indeed, you won't even be able to tell the provenance of the data.
3. If you browse the web at all, you are indirectly using both AWS and Azure constantly. To make ridiculous statements like that above are completely non-sensical.
Precisely. I actually rather doubt that many of the posters making those "ridiculous statements" really believe what they are arguing. It looks to me more like it just became perceived as an opportunity for some very contrived payback for past criticism of Microsoft, and enthusiasm trumped common sense. And, as usual, the bait was taken.
I can't imagine this being the case. If it's one thing that Apple has demonstrated in the past decade it's that they don't want to be beholden to anyone for strategic software or services. Look at what happened with waiting for Flash to mature in the mobile space, or all the hoops Apple still has to jump through for content and carrier support.
iCloud might not be running on Lion Server, although the underlying parts of OS X should be robust enough to tweak for a stripped-down hosting platform. (What do they use for the iTunes store? I honestly don't know, but that should be as good a stress-test as anything.) Setting up software for their own internal use is not the same as releasing a consumer-facing product; they know all their own use-cases and can tune things precisely for their own use with no concern for supporting others.
I totally agree. Apple has always demonstrated that they use there own hardware and software for everything they do. Apple's server software is quite competent doing anything they need. I don't think they built that North Carolina plant to hold Microsoft or Amazon servers in it. I'm not sure where this information came from but I'm totally sure it isn't correct. If Apple is going to serve info, it will be on Apple server hardware and software.
If I understand you, I think you're missing the point. It sounds like Apple is using Azure + Amazon in such a way that they'll only have an outage if *both* Azure and Amazon go out. Since this is only a rumor (and from The Register, at that), who knows if that's what they're doing.
[*]First, there is an adage that says to "use the right tool for the job". Apple being a consumer company, doesn't have any of the high-end software need to run a site on a scale like this, even despite MacOS running on Unix. This is no different than BMW, who make excellent cars, having to rely on trucks built by competitors to get their cars to dealers. Big whoop.
BMW does not expect truck drivers to use Z4 Roadsters to haul car carrier trailers. On the other hand, Apple expects IT departments to replace Xserves with Mac MInis and Mac Pros. They even wrote a whitepaper about putting Mac Minis and Mac Pros in server racks. Is Apple willing to do the same thing themselves?
BMW does not expect truck drivers to use Z4 Roadsters to haul car carrier trailers. On the other hand, Apple expects IT departments to replace Xserves with Mac MInis and Mac Pros. They even wrote a whitepaper about putting Mac Minis and Mac Pros in server racks. Is Apple willing to do the same thing themselves?
Where did Apple ever say that a Mini or Mac Pro was the best choice for a massive server farm?
It is possible to run a small business on OS X Server, but Apple clearly has abandoned any interest in Enterprise applications. Can you put a Mini or Mac Pro in a server rack? Sure. But that is not a recommendation to do so for EVERY possible application.
It is clear - Apple does not provide Enterprise solutions and really never has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot
I totally agree. Apple has always demonstrated that they use there own hardware and software for everything they do.
Really? So no one at Apple ever used Microsoft Office? Apple doesn't use the Sun systems that they're known to use? Apple hasn't used a Cray supercomputer?
I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot
Apple's server software is quite competent doing anything they need. I don't think they built that North Carolina plant to hold Microsoft or Amazon servers in it.
So did Steve Jobs tell you his plans before he left or did you get that info from Tim Cook?
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot
I'm not sure where this information came from but I'm totally sure it isn't correct. If Apple is going to serve info, it will be on Apple server hardware and software.
And you have no more information than the people who started this rumor. In fact, you clearly have less since you don't understand that Apple HAS used other companies' products in the past.
It is completely feasible that Apple would use Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS services, to provide the scaling needed, to run iCloud.
And Microsoft nor Amazon need not have anything to do with it.
Why ?
They both make APPLIANCES to place/install/configure in the data center. Self hosted appliances, which can control the virtualization and resource scaling necessary across a cloud. Apple would own the appliances, and the servers, and Microsoft/Amazon, would undoubtely have little hand in the matter.
As said before, Apple has no real Enterprise products.
For those who haven't figured it out, they use Teradata Storage Appliances (A SAN), in the North Carolina Data Center, see >> Teradata URL/
You can clearly see this, from the photos of the NC Data Center, that were shown in the announcement.
Additionally, the Microsoft Azure platform, supports Linux. Apple owns the code, so they can run OS X on anything they want. Windows, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, even.
Same with the Amazon AWS services.
Besides, who knows ? They might even have a secret version of OS X server for internal use... that is easier to manipulate.
Edit: Criticize all you want, the possibility isn't unsound at all.That they may be using Appliances for Microsoft Azure and Amazon , there's 3 leaders in Virtualization, and Scaling in a cloud - Microsoft Azure (Hyper-V), Amazon AWS, and vmWare vCloud..
Additionally, the Microsoft Azure platform, supports Linux. Apple owns the code, so they can run OS X on anything they want. Windows, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, even.
Same with the Amazon AWS services.
Besides, who knows ? They might even have a secret version of OS X server for internal use... that is easier to manipulate.
Edit: Criticize all you want, the possibility isn't unsound at all.That they may be using Appliances for Microsoft Azure and Amazon , there's 3 leaders in Virtualization, and Scaling in a cloud - Microsoft Azure (Hyper-V), Amazon AWS, and vmWare vCloud..
Ok let's think this through. What we are talking about is VPS (virtual private servers). Do you honestly think Apple is going to one by one install all the required software on each and every server. That would take a lifetime. No, if they have agreements with vendors it will be a mass deployment. If iTunes store is any indication of the iCloud service that will be running, Java Server Pages JM2EE seems most likely. Sure Webobjects, is JM2EE compliant and on multiple OS machines but how is it deployed,
Ok let's think this through. What we are talking about is VPS (virtual private servers). Do you honestly think Apple is going to one by one install all the required software on each and every server. That would take a lifetime. No, if they have agreements with vendors it will be a mass deployment. If iTunes store is any indication of the iCloud service that will be running, Java Server Pages JM2EE seems most likely. Sure Webobjects, is JM2EE compliant and on multiple OS machines but how is it deployed,
that is the question?
You continued on my point. It would be insanity to manually deploy all of the necessary virtualized instances (VPS isn't really accurate, kinda sorta).
It would be sensible to create a template + a VHD image, and deploy them to the fleet That way they are standardized in configuration, which is quite handy when using replication site to site & load balancing + firewall configurations on a very large scale.
It's logical to assume it's deployed in paravirtualization, controlled by a (large number of) hypervisors. Which have load balancing between the nodes currently active, with in app caching, and such for rapid read/write access.
Virtualized instances of the software needed, scalable to meet the load of the iCloud services that are being called.
Truthfully, a large majority of the load (server load , cpu / ram) will be I/O (disk write /read) due to the storage going in and out of the SAN. Balancing that, is a cinch, really, even in large scale, thanks to the amazing Teradata application.
The other half will be bandwidth across the backplanes, of course. Especially at the edge of the network & between multiple SAN nodes.
Edit 2: do I really believe apple would do this, themselves ? Yes. Reason being, they're super secretive, and since it's apparent that HP is a major provider of computing hardware, they are a competitor of Apple, I don't find it logical to believe Apple would allow HP - to create the necessary server setups... NDA or not, people talk I think HP (and the other hardware vendors/manufacturers) would install it,. Apple employees would be trained, and we can all say, they've got some amazing engineers/sysadmins; and they'd be off on their merry way.
Edit3: the san itself could EASILY be managed, via XSAN. Just load balance the nodes, and integrate it into whatever they like... that way XSAN (which is amazing) is controlling, essentially, what goes where; what to do when disks are full etc etc
That's why after the MobileMe team bungled their launch, the head of that group was demoted and was replaced by the person who ran the iTunes Store. More recently, Apple gave that person 100,000 Restricted Stock Units as a retention bonus. His name is Eddy Cue.
Eddy knows how to run cloud services and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who lobbied for multiple third-party services to help host iCloud.
Apple certainly has the financial resources to build and run everything themselves, however in reality, it's probably more reliable and safer to spread the load onto multiple service operators and domains. If a DDoS attack takes out Apple's servers, there are still AWS and Azure servers to shoulder the load.
Apple has been running their MobileMe mail service on big iron: Oracle/Sun. They know that certain scenarios call for outside partnerships (e.g., manufacturing), they aren't stupidly trying to do everything themselves like they did in the mid-Nineties.
Yes. Steve Jobs said 14 years ago, "we need to get past this idea that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose." That was true then as it is today. Steve has no qualms partnering with Microsoft. Apple both partners with as well as competes with them. On the other hand, when Steve Ballmer sees Microsoft employees with their beloved iPhones, he gets mad and pretends to stomp on them. So I guess the no-zero-sum sentiment doesn't work both ways
Comments
Apple needs to start somewhere and it's smart for them to utilize existing infrastructure so they can provide a reliable foundation to grow on. But this is just one step in a long journey.
It seems to me that proclamation is more about not having to personally deal with Microsoft Products sets on a day-to-day basis. On that basis, this Azure/Amazon revelation should really be a non-issue. Apple will always be the facade, what backs it should be irrelevant. Just like iTunes.
For some reason it's got people on both sides frothing at the mouth. For the fanboys, some clearly perceive this as some sort of Crying Game realisation. Truth is, as pointed out, Apple really is only at the design end of the game. None of their stuff is end to end. And with capable third parties able to fill the gaps seamlessly, why should they even try to be end-to-end?
I'm sure that some do, but to be fair, I suspect that even the most rabid of them are referring to the hardware they own or use and the software running on it.
As many posters have pointed out, it is kind of silly to expect Apple to design and manufacture everything that they use. It would not be good business in many cases, and good business is where they excel.
Let's also not forget the cries of "Even Microsoft can't use their own stuff" on this forum when it was discovered that certain Microsoft commercials were produced on Macs. Would the same people who are excusing Apple for not using its own products for iCloud servers be just as willing to excuse Microsoft?
it works both ways. Don't some Apple lovers also make a big deal and proclaim how 100 percent free from Microsoft they are because they never use any Microsoft Office products or never have to run Windows applications on their Macs? Yet they neglect things like their internet service provider which may run on Microsoft, their power company which may run on Microsoft, the house they live in which was probably designed on Windows PCs, the cars they drive which were probably designed on Windows PCs, the banks they keep their money in, the hospitals where they receive medical treatment, and so forth.
There is an argument to be made to be free of any MS UI (eg, ditching MS Office but still using MS Exchange).
Apple doesn't compete with companies like Oracle, Sun, HP, IBM, and Microsoft offering corporate data management services.
Let's also not forget the cries of "Even Microsoft can't use their own stuff" on this forum when it was discovered that certain Microsoft commercials were produced on Macs. Would the same people who are excusing Apple for not using its own products for iCloud servers be just as willing to excuse Microsoft?
Let's also not forget the cries of "Even Microsoft can't use their own stuff" on this forum when it was discovered that certain Microsoft commercials were produced on Macs. Would the same people who are excusing Apple for not using its own products for iCloud servers be just as willing to excuse Microsoft?
The difference is that Microsoft was advertising and promoting their product as being great for professional graphics users at the same time their commercials were made on Macs. Apple is not (and never has) promoted their product as being marketed for Enterprise server applications.
I don't get the comparison. Both Microsoft and Apple make a consumer OS. Ads are created on consumer PCs. Apple and Microsoft both compete in this market.
The difference is that Microsoft ALSO competes in the Enterprise server market. Apple doesn't.
If true, I am disappointed in Apple. They have the capital to do this right, getting ~20-100 co-lo sites across the globe and keeping a dedicated team working on it. It can even be a business unit they spin off later.
Apple has the capital to make sailboats right, too. That doesn't mean that they should.
One of the big lessons from Apple's performance for the past 10 years is that you should focus on what you do well and not mess with things that don't play to your strength.
That's true, just not relevant here.
Mac users are now dependent on Windows operating systems for cloud storage,, hence my point.
Mac users have always been dependent on Windows. Power plants, billing from utilities and creditors, airline flight schedules, and a million other things. And that's not likely to change any time soon.
Mac users choose not to use Windows on their own computers, but that doesn't mean that they are not affected by Windows - nor do I know of anyone who ever made that silly claim.
Remember that Apple gets more than two thirds of their income from outside the USA.
Not only that: the potential market outside the USA is 20 times as large as the US market is. So potential growth outside the USA is 20 times that in the US. Add the fact that the US are utterly broke and consequently can't afford expensive toys anymore (watch GPS dying), while the rest of the world, especially China, India, and Brasil, is drowning in cash, and you would have to be blind as a bat to not see where Apple should focus if they know what's good for them and want a chance to survive the US collapse.
The alternative is getting dragged down and sinking with the rest of the US economy.
Very Titanic...
Heroic and dramatic, but effectively pointless...
Apple has fallen in stature if true. In the 20 plus years I have been around computers 2% PC and 98% Mac I learned very early that the Microsoft Corporation was not to be trusted.
It is a matter of public record that MS stands charged and convicted of criminal offences in several parts of the world.
As a consumer I had no intent of every using a cloud service not Apple's and certainly not MS's. I could never just get my mind around trusting my personal data to something as nebulous as a Cloud.
If this rumour is true then it is a sad day, but if it is not true I very much hope Apple will put out the word to that effect very forcefully.
Just a thought! No Matter how clean and fresh smelling you are at the start. Spend a day down in the sewers with other sewer workers. The chances are 100% you shall smell differently at the end of the day.
Does anyone -- ANYONE -- reading this thread know anything about cloud computing?
1. Yes, it's entirely believable and entirely possible that Apple would contract with other cloud infrastructure companies to support the iCloud initiative. If they didn't, they'd be insane. Services like Amazon's AWS are robust, ubiquitous throughout the web, and distributed throughout the globe.
2. Developers build applications that rest in/on AWS or Azure. These are not things used by end users. It will have absolutely no impact on you if the data served by iCloud comes from Apple's single, solitary data center or from a data center regionally closer to you. Indeed, you won't even be able to tell the provenance of the data.
3. If you browse the web at all, you are indirectly using both AWS and Azure constantly. To make ridiculous statements like that above are completely non-sensical.
Does anyone -- ANYONE -- reading this thread know anything about cloud computing?
1. Yes, it's entirely believable and entirely possible that Apple would contract with other cloud infrastructure companies to support the iCloud initiative. If they didn't, they'd be insane. Services like Amazon's AWS are robust, ubiquitous throughout the web, and distributed throughout the globe.
2. Developers build applications that rest in/on AWS or Azure. These are not things used by end users. It will have absolutely no impact on you if the data served by iCloud comes from Apple's single, solitary data center or from a data center regionally closer to you. Indeed, you won't even be able to tell the provenance of the data.
3. If you browse the web at all, you are indirectly using both AWS and Azure constantly. To make ridiculous statements like that above are completely non-sensical.
Precisely. I actually rather doubt that many of the posters making those "ridiculous statements" really believe what they are arguing. It looks to me more like it just became perceived as an opportunity for some very contrived payback for past criticism of Microsoft, and enthusiasm trumped common sense. And, as usual, the bait was taken.
Apple has the capital to make sailboats right, too. That doesn't mean that they should.
Wrong!
They should !
It's the US' only chance to ever get back the America's Cup!
I can't imagine this being the case. If it's one thing that Apple has demonstrated in the past decade it's that they don't want to be beholden to anyone for strategic software or services. Look at what happened with waiting for Flash to mature in the mobile space, or all the hoops Apple still has to jump through for content and carrier support.
iCloud might not be running on Lion Server, although the underlying parts of OS X should be robust enough to tweak for a stripped-down hosting platform. (What do they use for the iTunes store? I honestly don't know, but that should be as good a stress-test as anything.) Setting up software for their own internal use is not the same as releasing a consumer-facing product; they know all their own use-cases and can tune things precisely for their own use with no concern for supporting others.
I totally agree. Apple has always demonstrated that they use there own hardware and software for everything they do. Apple's server software is quite competent doing anything they need. I don't think they built that North Carolina plant to hold Microsoft or Amazon servers in it. I'm not sure where this information came from but I'm totally sure it isn't correct. If Apple is going to serve info, it will be on Apple server hardware and software.
If I understand you, I think you're missing the point. It sounds like Apple is using Azure + Amazon in such a way that they'll only have an outage if *both* Azure and Amazon go out. Since this is only a rumor (and from The Register, at that), who knows if that's what they're doing.
Me get. Thanks.
[*]First, there is an adage that says to "use the right tool for the job". Apple being a consumer company, doesn't have any of the high-end software need to run a site on a scale like this, even despite MacOS running on Unix. This is no different than BMW, who make excellent cars, having to rely on trucks built by competitors to get their cars to dealers. Big whoop.
BMW does not expect truck drivers to use Z4 Roadsters to haul car carrier trailers. On the other hand, Apple expects IT departments to replace Xserves with Mac MInis and Mac Pros. They even wrote a whitepaper about putting Mac Minis and Mac Pros in server racks. Is Apple willing to do the same thing themselves?
BMW does not expect truck drivers to use Z4 Roadsters to haul car carrier trailers. On the other hand, Apple expects IT departments to replace Xserves with Mac MInis and Mac Pros. They even wrote a whitepaper about putting Mac Minis and Mac Pros in server racks. Is Apple willing to do the same thing themselves?
Where did Apple ever say that a Mini or Mac Pro was the best choice for a massive server farm?
It is possible to run a small business on OS X Server, but Apple clearly has abandoned any interest in Enterprise applications. Can you put a Mini or Mac Pro in a server rack? Sure. But that is not a recommendation to do so for EVERY possible application.
It is clear - Apple does not provide Enterprise solutions and really never has.
I totally agree. Apple has always demonstrated that they use there own hardware and software for everything they do.
Really? So no one at Apple ever used Microsoft Office? Apple doesn't use the Sun systems that they're known to use? Apple hasn't used a Cray supercomputer?
I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.
Apple's server software is quite competent doing anything they need. I don't think they built that North Carolina plant to hold Microsoft or Amazon servers in it.
So did Steve Jobs tell you his plans before he left or did you get that info from Tim Cook?
I'm not sure where this information came from but I'm totally sure it isn't correct. If Apple is going to serve info, it will be on Apple server hardware and software.
And you have no more information than the people who started this rumor. In fact, you clearly have less since you don't understand that Apple HAS used other companies' products in the past.
http://gigaom.com/cloud/the-webs-wat...es-cloud-gear/
It is completely feasible that Apple would use Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS services, to provide the scaling needed, to run iCloud.
And Microsoft nor Amazon need not have anything to do with it.
Why ?
They both make APPLIANCES to place/install/configure in the data center. Self hosted appliances, which can control the virtualization and resource scaling necessary across a cloud. Apple would own the appliances, and the servers, and Microsoft/Amazon, would undoubtely have little hand in the matter.
As said before, Apple has no real Enterprise products.
For those who haven't figured it out, they use Teradata Storage Appliances (A SAN), in the North Carolina Data Center, see >> Teradata URL/
As well as NetApp solutions NetApp SAN
And solutions from HP.
You can clearly see this, from the photos of the NC Data Center, that were shown in the announcement.
Additionally, the Microsoft Azure platform, supports Linux. Apple owns the code, so they can run OS X on anything they want. Windows, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, even.
Same with the Amazon AWS services.
Besides, who knows ? They might even have a secret version of OS X server for internal use... that is easier to manipulate.
Edit: Criticize all you want, the possibility isn't unsound at all.That they may be using Appliances for Microsoft Azure and Amazon , there's 3 leaders in Virtualization, and Scaling in a cloud - Microsoft Azure (Hyper-V), Amazon AWS, and vmWare vCloud..
Additionally, the Microsoft Azure platform, supports Linux. Apple owns the code, so they can run OS X on anything they want. Windows, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, even.
Same with the Amazon AWS services.
Besides, who knows ? They might even have a secret version of OS X server for internal use... that is easier to manipulate.
Edit: Criticize all you want, the possibility isn't unsound at all.That they may be using Appliances for Microsoft Azure and Amazon , there's 3 leaders in Virtualization, and Scaling in a cloud - Microsoft Azure (Hyper-V), Amazon AWS, and vmWare vCloud..
Ok let's think this through. What we are talking about is VPS (virtual private servers). Do you honestly think Apple is going to one by one install all the required software on each and every server. That would take a lifetime. No, if they have agreements with vendors it will be a mass deployment. If iTunes store is any indication of the iCloud service that will be running, Java Server Pages JM2EE seems most likely. Sure Webobjects, is JM2EE compliant and on multiple OS machines but how is it deployed,
that is the question?
Ok let's think this through. What we are talking about is VPS (virtual private servers). Do you honestly think Apple is going to one by one install all the required software on each and every server. That would take a lifetime. No, if they have agreements with vendors it will be a mass deployment. If iTunes store is any indication of the iCloud service that will be running, Java Server Pages JM2EE seems most likely. Sure Webobjects, is JM2EE compliant and on multiple OS machines but how is it deployed,
that is the question?
You continued on my point. It would be insanity to manually deploy all of the necessary virtualized instances (VPS isn't really accurate, kinda sorta).
It would be sensible to create a template + a VHD image, and deploy them to the fleet
It's logical to assume it's deployed in paravirtualization, controlled by a (large number of) hypervisors. Which have load balancing between the nodes currently active, with in app caching, and such for rapid read/write access.
Virtualized instances of the software needed, scalable to meet the load of the iCloud services that are being called.
Truthfully, a large majority of the load (server load , cpu / ram) will be I/O (disk write /read) due to the storage going in and out of the SAN. Balancing that, is a cinch, really, even in large scale, thanks to the amazing Teradata application.
The other half will be bandwidth across the backplanes, of course. Especially at the edge of the network & between multiple SAN nodes.
Edit 2: do I really believe apple would do this, themselves ? Yes. Reason being, they're super secretive, and since it's apparent that HP is a major provider of computing hardware, they are a competitor of Apple, I don't find it logical to believe Apple would allow HP - to create the necessary server setups... NDA or not, people talk
Edit3: the san itself could EASILY be managed, via XSAN. Just load balance the nodes, and integrate it into whatever they like... that way XSAN (which is amazing) is controlling, essentially, what goes where; what to do when disks are full etc etc
Correct.
That's why after the MobileMe team bungled their launch, the head of that group was demoted and was replaced by the person who ran the iTunes Store. More recently, Apple gave that person 100,000 Restricted Stock Units as a retention bonus. His name is Eddy Cue.
Eddy knows how to run cloud services and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who lobbied for multiple third-party services to help host iCloud.
Apple certainly has the financial resources to build and run everything themselves, however in reality, it's probably more reliable and safer to spread the load onto multiple service operators and domains. If a DDoS attack takes out Apple's servers, there are still AWS and Azure servers to shoulder the load.
Apple has been running their MobileMe mail service on big iron: Oracle/Sun. They know that certain scenarios call for outside partnerships (e.g., manufacturing), they aren't stupidly trying to do everything themselves like they did in the mid-Nineties.
Yes. Steve Jobs said 14 years ago, "we need to get past this idea that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose." That was true then as it is today. Steve has no qualms partnering with Microsoft. Apple both partners with as well as competes with them. On the other hand, when Steve Ballmer sees Microsoft employees with their beloved iPhones, he gets mad and pretends to stomp on them. So I guess the no-zero-sum sentiment doesn't work both ways