Hmm...sounds like a plausible rumors but unlikely. Steve Jobs was proud to state that Apple controls the whole ball of wax from soup to nuts. You see that with their consumer electronic devices. The iCloud will be no different. If anything, this is a temporary solution. SQL Azure does support NOSQL databases so they could be handling that piece and the API piece for vendors to build on could be what Amazon is handling.
What this rumor is suggesting is that Apple doesn't have the server technology to make a farm to support iCould. That's strange since Apple easily supports iTunes, Ping, MobileMe, the App Stores, etc from their current data centers. Though for Apple's data center they'll need density which either means Apple is buying 3rd party hardware or customizing their own suited to their needs.
You can bet if Apple is using Microsoft and Amazon then that is a short term solution until their data centers are up and fully functional. The costs for Windows and SQL Azure are not cheap and I'd imagine that Amazon is not either so they'd want to bring that in-house on cost alone.
Everybody should get over themselves. This has cheered me up. Amazon have a fully scalable system, and MS has something to prove with theirs. For both companies iCloud would be a big deal. On the other hand Apple do not have this expertise, and you cant take the existing employees at Apple and make them n-tiered super stars over night. That just doesn't happen.
So now I know that iCloud will work, and will scale. Good. Since, as the report says. load is being distributed amongst the backend carriers via an Apple formulated API . If Apple want to add their own backend to the mix in the future they can, for now they need the experts.
Anything else would have been suicide.
The voice of reason. Most people have no clue as to what's involved in building and running a large-scale web applications infrastructure. It makes perfect sense that Apple would build it's software platform in such a way that it can be run on any number of 'cloud' infrastructures including Amazon, Microsoft, and others. Apple has stumbled badly, in Cloud Services, and they cannot afford to have iCloud fail especially due to lack of a scalable, reliable infrastructure.
I disagree that using the word "poached" in this manner is illegal. To address your proposed argument: this isn't a crowded theater, and nobody is actually shouting "fire". (Did the word "poached" actually frighten you and make you want to run out of the room you are sitting in?)
What you are really wanting to say is that this may be an instance of libel, with Apple as the victim. But I think that argument fails too. Most people reading this will recognize the use of the word "poached" as just an artistic vivid verb. That's because there is actually no such thing as "poaching" a human. The definition of the word is confined to the illegal taking of wild animals and plants. At best, you could chastise the writer for using it inappropriately, since it also implies illegal behavior that he can't prove.
[Update: Well, I was wrong and take the previous paragraph back, because apparently "employee poaching" has graduated from a euphemism to an actual term with a law attached and everything. However, still, in the case of this post and context, I still believe the next paragraph...]
But I don't see the malice, the harm, or the person that's really going to care enough to raise a snicker over it. (Except you just did. Are you especially sensitive to such topics?)
Thompson
As the saying goes, "perception is reality." And as we have witnessed recently with Steve Jobs/philanthropic activity, letting it go leads to conclusions that whole fully wrong and misleading.
As a past publisher in the scientific arena, not confronting the errors more often than not leads to further issues; often costly, if not totally propelling further efforts to undo them.
If there is any truth to this at all, then it seems to me like Apple needs to climb off of that ludicrous war chest of theirs and use some of it to build a few new data centers. The last thing they need to be doing is depending on Microsoft again.
Amazon's data centers are located in Ashburn, Virginia, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New Jersey, Palo Alto, California, Seattle, St. Louis, Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo.
On the other hand Microsoft has around 32 data centers around the globe. Their strategy has mostly been to build them in pairs. For example Amsterdam is the back up for Dublin, Virginia is backed up in Washington state. The new Chicago center uses an innovative construction method whereby the the servers are assembled in truck containers already networked. They just hook them up to power and cooling and they are ready to go. They are estimated to be adding 10,000 servers per month worldwide.
I could see them using MS/Amazon as a way to backup that data.
I highly doubt that picture is of the real Apple data center. It does make me believe that Apple would use commodity servers with a customized release of OSX running on them. Something that corporate America has no access to.
To me that idea that Apple would use Amazon and Microsoft is plausible but not a long term solution for them. Apple wants to compete on Cloud services so competing means eating their own dog food. Hence their own set of APIs for 3rd parties to take advantage of iCould and not Amazon's to use their web services. It wouldn't make sense for Apple to have a translation layer between their APIs and Amazon's (too slow).
Creating a NOSQL (attribute-value pairs) database is not a major engineering feat so there's no reason to hedge with Microsoft's Azure. None of Apple's iCould offerings need the power of a relational database that they don't already have. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison were pretty close so there's no doubt in my mind that the relational databases behind Apple's online offerings are either MySQL or Oracle databases (both Oracle products).
I'd bet this is just a rumor with no truth to it. Make for a good discussion though.
So Apple built their massive new data center for what, exactly? Oh yeah, for hosting iCloud. Still, I can hardly blame Microsoft and Amazon for making a ludicrous attempt to grab some glory on their way out of the limelight. Why AppleInsider is reporting this bullshit is another question.
Well, first off, if you have only 1 datacenter, I don't care how big it is, it's only 1.
Second, why use you massive brand spankin' new datacenter to do "dumb" stuff, like storing content? That is the equivelant of Apple making their own hard drives for Macs, as opposed to using Seagate, Toshiba etc.
Well, first off, if you have only 1 datacenter, I don't care how big it is, it's only 1.
Second, why use you massive brand spankin' new datacenter to do "dumb" stuff, like storing content? That is the equivelant of Apple making their own hard drives for Macs, as opposed to using Seagate, Toshiba etc.
Well, first off, if you have only 1 datacenter, I don't care how big it is, it's only 1.
Second, why use you massive brand spankin' new datacenter to do "dumb" stuff, like storing content? That is the equivelant of Apple making their own hard drives for Macs, as opposed to using Seagate, Toshiba etc.
I wonder what the data centre is for then? Maybe it was their original plan, but they decided they couldn't do it themselves. Anyway, I am glad they are not doing something they have little skill at.
this is not an unusual arrangement. True DR requires it.
I would have thought a single vendor would include redundancy and disaster recovery as part of their service. Using 2 vendors simultaneously seems more like a corporate move, to not give any one other company the power to sabotage iCloud.
I would have thought a single vendor would include redundancy and disaster recovery as part of their service. Using 2 vendors simultaneously seems more like a corporate move, to not give any one other company the power to sabotage iCloud.
You initial point works fine until your vendor gets wiped out in toto. It's a risk many are prepared to take, but as an example, our data centre has comms provided by two different vendors. And they take completely different network and physical paths to it. I think within themselves, those vendors also provide redundant links.
You second point feeds off the first. I guess you're answering your own question in a way.
Comments
What this rumor is suggesting is that Apple doesn't have the server technology to make a farm to support iCould. That's strange since Apple easily supports iTunes, Ping, MobileMe, the App Stores, etc from their current data centers. Though for Apple's data center they'll need density which either means Apple is buying 3rd party hardware or customizing their own suited to their needs.
You can bet if Apple is using Microsoft and Amazon then that is a short term solution until their data centers are up and fully functional. The costs for Windows and SQL Azure are not cheap and I'd imagine that Amazon is not either so they'd want to bring that in-house on cost alone.
Everybody should get over themselves. This has cheered me up. Amazon have a fully scalable system, and MS has something to prove with theirs. For both companies iCloud would be a big deal. On the other hand Apple do not have this expertise, and you cant take the existing employees at Apple and make them n-tiered super stars over night. That just doesn't happen.
So now I know that iCloud will work, and will scale. Good. Since, as the report says. load is being distributed amongst the backend carriers via an Apple formulated API . If Apple want to add their own backend to the mix in the future they can, for now they need the experts.
Anything else would have been suicide.
The voice of reason. Most people have no clue as to what's involved in building and running a large-scale web applications infrastructure. It makes perfect sense that Apple would build it's software platform in such a way that it can be run on any number of 'cloud' infrastructures including Amazon, Microsoft, and others. Apple has stumbled badly, in Cloud Services, and they cannot afford to have iCloud fail especially due to lack of a scalable, reliable infrastructure.
I disagree that using the word "poached" in this manner is illegal. To address your proposed argument: this isn't a crowded theater, and nobody is actually shouting "fire". (Did the word "poached" actually frighten you and make you want to run out of the room you are sitting in?)
What you are really wanting to say is that this may be an instance of libel, with Apple as the victim. But I think that argument fails too. Most people reading this will recognize the use of the word "poached" as just an artistic vivid verb. That's because there is actually no such thing as "poaching" a human. The definition of the word is confined to the illegal taking of wild animals and plants. At best, you could chastise the writer for using it inappropriately, since it also implies illegal behavior that he can't prove.
[Update: Well, I was wrong and take the previous paragraph back, because apparently "employee poaching" has graduated from a euphemism to an actual term with a law attached and everything. However, still, in the case of this post and context, I still believe the next paragraph...]
But I don't see the malice, the harm, or the person that's really going to care enough to raise a snicker over it. (Except you just did. Are you especially sensitive to such topics?)
Thompson
As the saying goes, "perception is reality." And as we have witnessed recently with Steve Jobs/philanthropic activity, letting it go leads to conclusions that whole fully wrong and misleading.
As a past publisher in the scientific arena, not confronting the errors more often than not leads to further issues; often costly, if not totally propelling further efforts to undo them.
Agreed?
On the other hand Microsoft has around 32 data centers around the globe. Their strategy has mostly been to build them in pairs. For example Amsterdam is the back up for Dublin, Virginia is backed up in Washington state. The new Chicago center uses an innovative construction method whereby the the servers are assembled in truck containers already networked. They just hook them up to power and cooling and they are ready to go. They are estimated to be adding 10,000 servers per month worldwide.
The recent pictures clearly show pictures of LOTS of servers in their new North Carolina data center.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/a...e-idatacenter/
I could see them using MS/Amazon as a way to backup that data.
I'd need to see some proof of this rumor.
The recent pictures clearly show pictures of LOTS of servers in their new North Carolina data center.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/a...e-idatacenter/
I could see them using MS/Amazon as a way to backup that data.
I highly doubt that picture is of the real Apple data center. It does make me believe that Apple would use commodity servers with a customized release of OSX running on them. Something that corporate America has no access to.
To me that idea that Apple would use Amazon and Microsoft is plausible but not a long term solution for them. Apple wants to compete on Cloud services so competing means eating their own dog food. Hence their own set of APIs for 3rd parties to take advantage of iCould and not Amazon's to use their web services. It wouldn't make sense for Apple to have a translation layer between their APIs and Amazon's (too slow).
Creating a NOSQL (attribute-value pairs) database is not a major engineering feat so there's no reason to hedge with Microsoft's Azure. None of Apple's iCould offerings need the power of a relational database that they don't already have. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison were pretty close so there's no doubt in my mind that the relational databases behind Apple's online offerings are either MySQL or Oracle databases (both Oracle products).
I'd bet this is just a rumor with no truth to it. Make for a good discussion though.
So Apple built their massive new data center for what, exactly? Oh yeah, for hosting iCloud. Still, I can hardly blame Microsoft and Amazon for making a ludicrous attempt to grab some glory on their way out of the limelight. Why AppleInsider is reporting this bullshit is another question.
Well, first off, if you have only 1 datacenter, I don't care how big it is, it's only 1.
Second, why use you massive brand spankin' new datacenter to do "dumb" stuff, like storing content? That is the equivelant of Apple making their own hard drives for Macs, as opposed to using Seagate, Toshiba etc.
Same principle here.
Third - it has been confirmed:
http://www.infiniteapple.net/apple-i...ted-confirmed/
Well, first off, if you have only 1 datacenter, I don't care how big it is, it's only 1.
Second, why use you massive brand spankin' new datacenter to do "dumb" stuff, like storing content? That is the equivelant of Apple making their own hard drives for Macs, as opposed to using Seagate, Toshiba etc.
Same principle here.
Third - it has been confirmed:
http://www.infiniteapple.net/apple-i...ted-confirmed/
pwn
10char
Well, first off, if you have only 1 datacenter, I don't care how big it is, it's only 1.
Second, why use you massive brand spankin' new datacenter to do "dumb" stuff, like storing content? That is the equivelant of Apple making their own hard drives for Macs, as opposed to using Seagate, Toshiba etc.
Same principle here.
Third - it has been confirmed:
http://www.infiniteapple.net/apple-i...ted-confirmed/
I wonder what the data centre is for then? Maybe it was their original plan, but they decided they couldn't do it themselves. Anyway, I am glad they are not doing something they have little skill at.
"Hi, I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Mac, whose files are dependent on a PC."
tumbleweed.
"Hi, I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Mac, whose files are dependent on a PC."
"I'm a PC, and Windows 8 was my idea, but this ad was made on a Mac."
"Hi, I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Mac, whose files are dependent on a PC."
this is not an unusual arrangement. True DR requires it.
I would have thought a single vendor would include redundancy and disaster recovery as part of their service. Using 2 vendors simultaneously seems more like a corporate move, to not give any one other company the power to sabotage iCloud.
I would have thought a single vendor would include redundancy and disaster recovery as part of their service. Using 2 vendors simultaneously seems more like a corporate move, to not give any one other company the power to sabotage iCloud.
You initial point works fine until your vendor gets wiped out in toto. It's a risk many are prepared to take, but as an example, our data centre has comms provided by two different vendors. And they take completely different network and physical paths to it. I think within themselves, those vendors also provide redundant links.
You second point feeds off the first. I guess you're answering your own question in a way.
Ever see a Mac ad?
So Asure doesn't run on Windows?
a server farm isn't a personal computer. hence his point.