It better be free. iWork is short on features and overpriced to begin with.
I find it better value than MSOffice for Mac, but Apple should improve it even more. MSOffice is not its only competition NeoOffice and Lotus Symphony are good and free.
I highly doubt that iWork will go online. For several reasons:
1) iWork is designed to have high quality (print-ready) output that would not be very difficult to achieve in browsers for next several years
2) iWork is well integrated with OS X at level that is yet unreachable in browsers
3) Apple keeps creative software Mac-exclusive (even SW that was cross-platform before Apple bought it)
We will probably see just improvements in sharing capabilities and document workflow online like current iWork.com. Where everybody can download finished version of a document or have comments. While all creative stuff is still done in iWork desktop application. What I would really love to see support for realtime document sharing enabling a single document to be edited by multiple people (but in desktop application).
For me Keynote and Numbers beat competition to the ground including MS Office (both Win and Mac), OpenOffice.org and Google Docs. Google Docs advantage is simultaneous editing of a single document. However I still have to use OpenOffice.org for technical documentation as Pages misses support for automatic numbering of tables/figures and cross-referecning. I sincerely hope that next version of iWork is released soon and will properly support cross-referencing, so I could finally leave OpenOffice.
I'm curious about iWork.com, but with Google Docs and OpenOffice.org there's really no reason for me to use iWork.
That said, if I was going to buy an office suite, I'd rather go with iWork than Office for Mac for two reasons. One, I trust Apple; I don't trust Microsoft. Two, the price; iWork is $79 and Office for Mac is 129.95. To complain about iWork's price is ludicrous. Also, I'd imagine iWork is more intuitive, easier to use, and therfore less infuriating to use than Office for Mac because Office for PC causes me nothing but headaches.
I'm curious about iWork.com, but with Google Docs and OpenOffice.org there's really no reason for me to use iWork.
That said, if I was going to buy an office suite, I'd rather go with iWork than Office for Mac for two reasons. One, I trust Apple; I don't trust Microsoft. Two, the price; iWork is $79 and Office for Mac is 129.95. To complain about iWork's price is ludicrous. Also, I'd imagine iWork is more intuitive, easier to use, and therfore less infuriating to use than Office for Mac because Office for PC causes me nothing but headaches.
google docs also monitors your work and prevents you from sharing documents if they don't like the content
I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html
Also, I heard from someone who knows someone who knows what's going on at Google, and the word is that cloud computing is bigger than anyone yet realizes.
I know that last bit sounds really stupid... But I did hear that from the cited source, and there does seem to be substantiation throughout the ether.
I watch the stock market and have gotten parallel vibes.
Here's some free info from my own recent investigation; the numbers just to the right of the stock symbols are the price per share on 11-27-09; the rating out of 10 is from MSN Stocks, same for the Buy/Hold/Sell roccommendations:
Fri, Nov. 11-27-09 Stock Research
Cloud Computing:
GOOG 579.76 9 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
AKAM 23.92 10 out of 10 5 CAPS Stars Hold
VMW 41.30 6 out of 10 4 CAPS Stars Hold
EMC 16.75 9 out of 10 4 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
AAPL 200.59 9 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
MSFT 29.22 8 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
INTC 19.11 6 out of 8 4 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
ARMH 7.81 8 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Hold
GOOG already has big companies using its Google Apps and cloud computing will probably grow if only because it's cheap. Also, GOOG is set to produce its own hardware in a phone and in a netbook. The netbook could especially be big if cloud computing takes off.
AKAM basically sells a "private internet" to big companies that benefit from having traffic efficiently routed.
VMW can turn one actual server into 4 or 5 virtual servers. This will open up possibilities for companies that turn to cloud computing (it will free-up their existing servers and open new possibilities). Of course, virtual servers will facilitate cloud computing in the first place.
EMC owns about 80% of VMware.
AAPL is the dark horse in cloud computing (in my opinion). What are its plans for that server farm it recently inked? Tablet or netbook in the future? What about the iPhone?
MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.
INTC will benefit from its Atom processor.
ARMH will benefit from its ARM chips.
Full disclosure: I own stock in AAPL and INTC. Other companies may compose stocks in various index funds I own; I'm not sure.
where i work we're a EMC, MSFT, VMW and GOOG customer. VMW is not cloud computing, trust me. it's good for some things and a PITA for others. EMC are crack dealers, they charge you $800 for a 500GB hard drive.
cloud computing is a stupid marketing term. 10 years ago it was web services, then the tech media used a few others like software as a service. cloud computing is the latest buzz word. in reality it's not as easy as the buzz marketing suggests. and not as cheap.
i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper
I work off my iDisk completely. I Have a "Documents" folder (an alias) sitting in the Dock, pointing to the same folder on my iDisk. I have access to my files from anywhere in the world from any device that has a browser, and I can work on my files from virtually any device that has a browser and can edit text. Whatever syncs automatically with my iDisk is saved locally. All on the fly. I work with nearly 4gb of data in this manner.
Cloud Computing? Sounds like a winning idea to me ...
network resources have always been there since the introduction of the original PC you could connect it to a mainframe. cloud computing is the same sales pitch as the ASP of the late 1980's. where you turn everything to an application service provider to run all your apps remotely.
i use Google a lot including Google Wave and it reminds me of the old stories of mainframe time sharing since Google is becoming slow. and i've seen Chrome use up 600MB of RAM while in Wave making the whole thin client theory completely wrong
Or, did they post it internally, as per most company's HR requirements, and no one wanted it?
Or,
Do they have to post it externally, while posting for it internally, wherein it is already filled by someone who was promised the job?
So, they are posting for a job that is already filled, giving themselves a marketing disadvantage, or no one internally wants.
Or am I off base here?
Explain.
Yes, because all of apple's programmers have experience as RIA devs and they aren't doing anything else important.
No company ever expands by hiring new folks and Apple is so short on funds that this is obviously a move of desperation where no one internally wants the job.
i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper
Can your HP Proliant server surge when you get a lot of traffic? How much for the high availability options for redundancy? How much for that HP Proliant server at a colo with a 24/7 NOC and IT support?
Yah, a bare server is maybe cheaper if you're using it at full load 24/7.
A large instance is $1961.20 ($910 + $0.12 * 365 * 24)
7.5GB 4 EC2 compute units (2 virtual cores), 850GB local storage, 64 bit.
$0.015 per instance hour for monitoring and autoscaling. Like say I need extra capacity every end of month or quarter I can just scale up for those short periods and not have to have extra capacity around idle most of the time. Or even autoscale during the day. Assume I need extra servers during the day for 8 hours. Cost $910 + 52 weeks * 40 hours * $0.12/hour. That's $1159.60 per large instance per year. Heck, I've got UPSs that cost that much.
For a dual core HP Proliant DL120 with 6GB ram, 900GB HDD, and RHEL runs $2700. That's not including the rack, switch, and UPS you need. Plus the cost for electricity, IT, etc.
For $1.5-$2K a year + the ability to add or remove servers instantly it's an excellent choice for both startups and larger companies without an IT focus.
MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.
Google Windows Azure. Still just a CTP (community tech preview) with a 2010 launch date. It has an expected $0.12 per hour rate.
It's insecure, a privacy and data loss risk. It's designed to be on products that mandate a cell phone or wifi connection in order to function, so it will suck your wallet dry every month too.
With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.
Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.
It's insecure, a privacy and data loss risk. It's designed to be on products that mandate a cell phone or wifi connection in order to function, so it will suck your wallet dry every month too.
With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.
Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.
Yea...
How is IDisk/MobileMe a "data loss risk" when everything is saved locally as well? Have you ever used any of these services? Why do you assume you won't have synced local copies of everything?
With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.
Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.
Yea...
Besides what Quadra stated, there are no 80-core consumer machines on the market, they have nothing to do with storage, and 2TB SDXC are not on the horizon, they just a max limit that won?t be achieved for many years. Toshiba is only up to 64GB for SDXC.
Can your HP Proliant server surge when you get a lot of traffic? How much for the high availability options for redundancy? How much for that HP Proliant server at a colo with a 24/7 NOC and IT support?
Yah, a bare server is maybe cheaper if you're using it at full load 24/7.
A large instance is $1961.20 ($910 + $0.12 * 365 * 24)
7.5GB 4 EC2 compute units (2 virtual cores), 850GB local storage, 64 bit.
$0.015 per instance hour for monitoring and autoscaling. Like say I need extra capacity every end of month or quarter I can just scale up for those short periods and not have to have extra capacity around idle most of the time. Or even autoscale during the day. Assume I need extra servers during the day for 8 hours. Cost $910 + 52 weeks * 40 hours * $0.12/hour. That's $1159.60 per large instance per year. Heck, I've got UPSs that cost that much.
For a dual core HP Proliant DL120 with 6GB ram, 900GB HDD, and RHEL runs $2700. That's not including the rack, switch, and UPS you need. Plus the cost for electricity, IT, etc.
For $1.5-$2K a year + the ability to add or remove servers instantly it's an excellent choice for both startups and larger companies without an IT focus.
RAM is so cheap that you can just buy 32GB of RAM and not worry about it. we had one of these data surges a few weeks ago on a DL360 with 8GB RAM. a week later it had 32GB and normal use is 2GB for that server
I don't know about DL120's but i compared the price of a DL380 with 32GB of RAM which is what our minimum buy spec is now compared to EC2. Proliant G6 servers will take up to 144GB of RAM allowing you to buy less machines and not worry about using EC2
EC2 costs $10000 per year or so. physical server around $10,000. and i don't think i accounted for the data transfer charges and the increased bandwidth costs we'll have to pay. and we still have proliant servers from 10 years ago doing some things. sometimes we use them for testing, other times they still do work. with Amazon we would still be paying
EC2 makes sense for small businesses, but not larger ones
Anyhow, iWork being on the desktop or in the cloud seems like unnecessary either/or logic to me. If iWork.com suggests anything in its beta version, it's a cloud extension of desktop iWork, not a replacement. I believe the impending slate device and the evidently in development cloud-based extension of iWork are related.
DON'T USE 'CLOUD' APPLICATIONS! THE 'CLOUD' OWNER – APPLE IN THIS CASE – RECORDS AND STORES EVERYTHING, EVERY CLICK, AND EVERY KEYSTROKE YOU DO IN THAT 'CLOUD'. INCLUDING YOUR IDENTITY (your IP address). THAT IS VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR APPLE, FOR THE FEDS, AND FOR HACKERS! DATABASES GET LOST, SOLD, AND HACKED ALL THE TIME! THAT WILL ONLY GET WORSE, NOT BETTER!
AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATA SECURITY? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN THAT 'CLOUD' IS SUDDENLY, OVERNIGHT, NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR YOU ANYMORE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ACCESS TO YOUR DATA THEN?
SO DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN ANY 'CLOUD'.
For exactly the same reasons you should not use Google, because Google also records and stores all your search terms, your search patters, your clicks, and your identity (IP address). And that can come back to haunt you.
Use IXQuick instead! IXQuick does not record or store IP addresses, so your identity cannot be combined with your search terms, search patterns, and clicks!
DON'T USE 'CLOUD' APPLICATIONS! THE 'CLOUD' OWNER – APPLE IN THIS CASE – RECORDS AND STORES EVERYTHING, EVERY CLICK, AND EVERY KEYSTROKE YOU DO IN THAT 'CLOUD'. INCLUDING YOUR IDENTITY (your IP address). THAT IS VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR APPLE, FOR THE FEDS, AND FOR HACKERS! DATABASES GET LOST, SOLD, AND HACKED ALL THE TIME! THAT WILL ONLY GET WORSE, NOT BETTER!
AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATA SECURITY? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN THAT 'CLOUD' IS SUDDENLY, OVERNIGHT, NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR YOU ANYMORE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ACCESS TO YOUR DATA THEN?
SO DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN ANY 'CLOUD'.
For exactly the same reasons you should not use Google, because Google also records and stores all your search terms, your search patters, your clicks, and your identity (IP address). And that can come back to haunt you.
Use IXQuick instead! IXQuick does not record or store IP addresses, so your identity cannot be combined with your search terms, search patterns, and clicks!
Put down the tinfoil hat. You're not that important to Apple. Neither am I.
And you might want to use Apple's current Cloud computing services before attempting to discuss them with the kind of authority that you seem to think requires All Caps.
Sure I am! As are you! We are prospective customers for more gear and services. We are the source of revenue and profit! We are 'harrassable'. You like to be harrassed?
And it's not just the 'cloud' owner, Apple in this case, that is dangerous to your privacy. It is much more the Feds and hackers that are dangerous to your privacy. Not controlled by Apple, and certainly completely out of your control!
Comments
It better be free. iWork is short on features and overpriced to begin with.
I find it better value than MSOffice for Mac, but Apple should improve it even more. MSOffice is not its only competition NeoOffice and Lotus Symphony are good and free.
[...]limitations without simplicity [...].
Limitations?! Like what?
1) iWork is designed to have high quality (print-ready) output that would not be very difficult to achieve in browsers for next several years
2) iWork is well integrated with OS X at level that is yet unreachable in browsers
3) Apple keeps creative software Mac-exclusive (even SW that was cross-platform before Apple bought it)
We will probably see just improvements in sharing capabilities and document workflow online like current iWork.com. Where everybody can download finished version of a document or have comments. While all creative stuff is still done in iWork desktop application. What I would really love to see support for realtime document sharing enabling a single document to be edited by multiple people (but in desktop application).
For me Keynote and Numbers beat competition to the ground including MS Office (both Win and Mac), OpenOffice.org and Google Docs. Google Docs advantage is simultaneous editing of a single document. However I still have to use OpenOffice.org for technical documentation as Pages misses support for automatic numbering of tables/figures and cross-referecning. I sincerely hope that next version of iWork is released soon and will properly support cross-referencing, so I could finally leave OpenOffice.
That said, if I was going to buy an office suite, I'd rather go with iWork than Office for Mac for two reasons. One, I trust Apple; I don't trust Microsoft. Two, the price; iWork is $79 and Office for Mac is 129.95. To complain about iWork's price is ludicrous. Also, I'd imagine iWork is more intuitive, easier to use, and therfore less infuriating to use than Office for Mac because Office for PC causes me nothing but headaches.
I'm curious about iWork.com, but with Google Docs and OpenOffice.org there's really no reason for me to use iWork.
That said, if I was going to buy an office suite, I'd rather go with iWork than Office for Mac for two reasons. One, I trust Apple; I don't trust Microsoft. Two, the price; iWork is $79 and Office for Mac is 129.95. To complain about iWork's price is ludicrous. Also, I'd imagine iWork is more intuitive, easier to use, and therfore less infuriating to use than Office for Mac because Office for PC causes me nothing but headaches.
google docs also monitors your work and prevents you from sharing documents if they don't like the content
I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html
Also, I heard from someone who knows someone who knows what's going on at Google, and the word is that cloud computing is bigger than anyone yet realizes.
I know that last bit sounds really stupid... But I did hear that from the cited source, and there does seem to be substantiation throughout the ether.
I watch the stock market and have gotten parallel vibes.
Here's some free info from my own recent investigation; the numbers just to the right of the stock symbols are the price per share on 11-27-09; the rating out of 10 is from MSN Stocks, same for the Buy/Hold/Sell roccommendations:
Fri, Nov. 11-27-09 Stock Research
Cloud Computing:
GOOG 579.76 9 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
AKAM 23.92 10 out of 10 5 CAPS Stars Hold
VMW 41.30 6 out of 10 4 CAPS Stars Hold
EMC 16.75 9 out of 10 4 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
AAPL 200.59 9 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
MSFT 29.22 8 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
INTC 19.11 6 out of 8 4 CAPS Stars Moderate Buy
ARMH 7.81 8 out of 10 3 CAPS Stars Hold
GOOG already has big companies using its Google Apps and cloud computing will probably grow if only because it's cheap. Also, GOOG is set to produce its own hardware in a phone and in a netbook. The netbook could especially be big if cloud computing takes off.
AKAM basically sells a "private internet" to big companies that benefit from having traffic efficiently routed.
VMW can turn one actual server into 4 or 5 virtual servers. This will open up possibilities for companies that turn to cloud computing (it will free-up their existing servers and open new possibilities). Of course, virtual servers will facilitate cloud computing in the first place.
EMC owns about 80% of VMware.
AAPL is the dark horse in cloud computing (in my opinion). What are its plans for that server farm it recently inked? Tablet or netbook in the future? What about the iPhone?
MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.
INTC will benefit from its Atom processor.
ARMH will benefit from its ARM chips.
Full disclosure: I own stock in AAPL and INTC. Other companies may compose stocks in various index funds I own; I'm not sure.
where i work we're a EMC, MSFT, VMW and GOOG customer. VMW is not cloud computing, trust me. it's good for some things and a PITA for others. EMC are crack dealers, they charge you $800 for a 500GB hard drive.
cloud computing is a stupid marketing term. 10 years ago it was web services, then the tech media used a few others like software as a service. cloud computing is the latest buzz word. in reality it's not as easy as the buzz marketing suggests. and not as cheap.
i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper
Cloud Computing? Sounds like a winning idea to me ...
i use Google a lot including Google Wave and it reminds me of the old stories of mainframe time sharing since Google is becoming slow. and i've seen Chrome use up 600MB of RAM while in Wave making the whole thin client theory completely wrong
Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
Or, did they post it internally, as per most company's HR requirements, and no one wanted it?
Or,
Do they have to post it externally, while posting for it internally, wherein it is already filled by someone who was promised the job?
So, they are posting for a job that is already filled, giving themselves a marketing disadvantage, or no one internally wants.
Or am I off base here?
Explain.
Yes, because all of apple's programmers have experience as RIA devs and they aren't doing anything else important.
No company ever expands by hiring new folks and Apple is so short on funds that this is obviously a move of desperation where no one internally wants the job.
No you aren't offbase at all.
i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper
Can your HP Proliant server surge when you get a lot of traffic? How much for the high availability options for redundancy? How much for that HP Proliant server at a colo with a 24/7 NOC and IT support?
Yah, a bare server is maybe cheaper if you're using it at full load 24/7.
A large instance is $1961.20 ($910 + $0.12 * 365 * 24)
7.5GB 4 EC2 compute units (2 virtual cores), 850GB local storage, 64 bit.
$0.015 per instance hour for monitoring and autoscaling. Like say I need extra capacity every end of month or quarter I can just scale up for those short periods and not have to have extra capacity around idle most of the time. Or even autoscale during the day. Assume I need extra servers during the day for 8 hours. Cost $910 + 52 weeks * 40 hours * $0.12/hour. That's $1159.60 per large instance per year. Heck, I've got UPSs that cost that much.
For a dual core HP Proliant DL120 with 6GB ram, 900GB HDD, and RHEL runs $2700. That's not including the rack, switch, and UPS you need. Plus the cost for electricity, IT, etc.
For $1.5-$2K a year + the ability to add or remove servers instantly it's an excellent choice for both startups and larger companies without an IT focus.
MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.
Google Windows Azure. Still just a CTP (community tech preview) with a 2010 launch date. It has an expected $0.12 per hour rate.
It's insecure, a privacy and data loss risk. It's designed to be on products that mandate a cell phone or wifi connection in order to function, so it will suck your wallet dry every month too.
With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.
Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.
Yea...
Screw the "Cloud"
It's insecure, a privacy and data loss risk. It's designed to be on products that mandate a cell phone or wifi connection in order to function, so it will suck your wallet dry every month too.
With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.
Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.
Yea...
How is IDisk/MobileMe a "data loss risk" when everything is saved locally as well? Have you ever used any of these services? Why do you assume you won't have synced local copies of everything?
google docs also monitors your work and prevents you from sharing documents if they don't like the content
Has that happened to you?
With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.
Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.
Yea...
Besides what Quadra stated, there are no 80-core consumer machines on the market, they have nothing to do with storage, and 2TB SDXC are not on the horizon, they just a max limit that won?t be achieved for many years. Toshiba is only up to 64GB for SDXC.
Can your HP Proliant server surge when you get a lot of traffic? How much for the high availability options for redundancy? How much for that HP Proliant server at a colo with a 24/7 NOC and IT support?
Yah, a bare server is maybe cheaper if you're using it at full load 24/7.
A large instance is $1961.20 ($910 + $0.12 * 365 * 24)
7.5GB 4 EC2 compute units (2 virtual cores), 850GB local storage, 64 bit.
$0.015 per instance hour for monitoring and autoscaling. Like say I need extra capacity every end of month or quarter I can just scale up for those short periods and not have to have extra capacity around idle most of the time. Or even autoscale during the day. Assume I need extra servers during the day for 8 hours. Cost $910 + 52 weeks * 40 hours * $0.12/hour. That's $1159.60 per large instance per year. Heck, I've got UPSs that cost that much.
For a dual core HP Proliant DL120 with 6GB ram, 900GB HDD, and RHEL runs $2700. That's not including the rack, switch, and UPS you need. Plus the cost for electricity, IT, etc.
For $1.5-$2K a year + the ability to add or remove servers instantly it's an excellent choice for both startups and larger companies without an IT focus.
RAM is so cheap that you can just buy 32GB of RAM and not worry about it. we had one of these data surges a few weeks ago on a DL360 with 8GB RAM. a week later it had 32GB and normal use is 2GB for that server
I don't know about DL120's but i compared the price of a DL380 with 32GB of RAM which is what our minimum buy spec is now compared to EC2. Proliant G6 servers will take up to 144GB of RAM allowing you to buy less machines and not worry about using EC2
EC2 costs $10000 per year or so. physical server around $10,000. and i don't think i accounted for the data transfer charges and the increased bandwidth costs we'll have to pay. and we still have proliant servers from 10 years ago doing some things. sometimes we use them for testing, other times they still do work. with Amazon we would still be paying
EC2 makes sense for small businesses, but not larger ones
Screw the "Cloud"
Now that sounds like a physical impossibility...
Anyhow, iWork being on the desktop or in the cloud seems like unnecessary either/or logic to me. If iWork.com suggests anything in its beta version, it's a cloud extension of desktop iWork, not a replacement. I believe the impending slate device and the evidently in development cloud-based extension of iWork are related.
AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATA SECURITY? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN THAT 'CLOUD' IS SUDDENLY, OVERNIGHT, NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR YOU ANYMORE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ACCESS TO YOUR DATA THEN?
SO DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN ANY 'CLOUD'.
For exactly the same reasons you should not use Google, because Google also records and stores all your search terms, your search patters, your clicks, and your identity (IP address). And that can come back to haunt you.
Use IXQuick instead! IXQuick does not record or store IP addresses, so your identity cannot be combined with your search terms, search patterns, and clicks!
DON'T USE 'CLOUD' APPLICATIONS! THE 'CLOUD' OWNER – APPLE IN THIS CASE – RECORDS AND STORES EVERYTHING, EVERY CLICK, AND EVERY KEYSTROKE YOU DO IN THAT 'CLOUD'. INCLUDING YOUR IDENTITY (your IP address). THAT IS VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR APPLE, FOR THE FEDS, AND FOR HACKERS! DATABASES GET LOST, SOLD, AND HACKED ALL THE TIME! THAT WILL ONLY GET WORSE, NOT BETTER!
AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATA SECURITY? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN THAT 'CLOUD' IS SUDDENLY, OVERNIGHT, NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR YOU ANYMORE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ACCESS TO YOUR DATA THEN?
SO DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN ANY 'CLOUD'.
For exactly the same reasons you should not use Google, because Google also records and stores all your search terms, your search patters, your clicks, and your identity (IP address). And that can come back to haunt you.
Use IXQuick instead! IXQuick does not record or store IP addresses, so your identity cannot be combined with your search terms, search patterns, and clicks!
http://www.apple.com/legal/mobileme/en/terms.html
http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/
Put down the tinfoil hat. You're not that important to Apple. Neither am I.
And you might want to use Apple's current Cloud computing services before attempting to discuss them with the kind of authority that you seem to think requires All Caps.
You're not that important to Apple. Neither am I.
Sure I am! As are you! We are prospective customers for more gear and services. We are the source of revenue and profit! We are 'harrassable'. You like to be harrassed?
And it's not just the 'cloud' owner, Apple in this case, that is dangerous to your privacy. It is much more the Feds and hackers that are dangerous to your privacy. Not controlled by Apple, and certainly completely out of your control!