As others have said why did they build that data center. Now maybe they have an intention here to use these services as a backup of sorts or maybe to serve far flung parts of the world. I just dont see Apple giving up something as critical as iCloud completely to third parties.
The article noted:
"User data will reportedly be stored in multiple locations across the three companies' servers"
It will be an international service too so in certain countries, it may be better to just use a local 3rd party server instead of e.g getting everyone in the UK, France and Germany to connect to the US data centre and possibly overload it.
Load balancing and data redundancy. When the data is this important, you'd want to have a number of copies within a limit of you being able to protect and manage it.
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.
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.
This must be one of the weirdest comments I have read in a while. I don't think you grasp what iCloud is about. The server load of iCloud is going to massive. MASSIVE! Every picture made by the millions of iOS users will be instantaneously uploaded (and pushed to their other iOS devices), all these users can backup their entire iOS device into the cloud, iWork in the cloud, users can upload their non-iTunes music, etc etc etc. Given the train wreck iDisk is, it would not be a surprise if they will rely on third party servers.
And iCloud getting stuff from other cloud services? Are you high?
There is a limit per person, which is less than a google email limit.
Apple's reliance on Microsoft and Amazon is not an indication that the company is standing still when it comes to the cloud, though. In April, it poached Kevin Timmons, Microsoft's data center chief, to help run its cloud initiatives.
Perhaps Josh Ong should realize that the First Amendment does not preclude anyone from falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre."
Unless he has evidence that Apple used illegal methods to acquire Timmons services, describing the hiring as such is equally illegal.
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.
So you think Apple built a giant data center for Microsoft and Amazon? That would kind of defeat the purpose of outsourcing. They are doing iCloud themselves. They have been running iTunes for some time, and MobileMe no longer sucks. They have a lot of experience with this stuff, actually, and have the resources to hire any additional expertise they need.
If this is true (and I believe there's at least partial truth), then it is an excellent decision. Quite a few good reasons (http://bit.ly/rq5YbR).
Regardless of how you look at it, it would be silly to not use iCloud just because of this. After all, as consumers, who cares how they make it happen as long as it is a good, reliable service?
As others have said why did they build that data center. Now maybe they have an intention here to use these services as a backup of sorts or maybe to serve far flung parts of the world. I just dont see Apple giving up something as critical as iCloud completely to third parties.
I suspect the article is based on incomplete info. That is the story is partly warped due to incomplete data.
I think you got it wrong, pal! This is about the 'plumbing'; the software and the nitty gritty of the data server loading, execution and the back end of iCloud. Not using Amazon's and MS's own data servers.
On my own take, if the story is indeed true, this just shows how sneaky Microsoft is with their senior staffs. First, Elop came to Nokia from MS then Nokia decided to use Windows Mobile 7 now, Kevin Timmons, Microsoft's data centre chief is working inside Apple, I don't what to know what he is going to do next Trojan horse!
So you think Apple built a giant data center for Microsoft and Amazon? That would kind of defeat the purpose of outsourcing. They are doing iCloud themselves. They have been running iTunes for some time, and MobileMe no longer sucks. They have a lot of experience with this stuff, actually, and have the resources to hire any additional expertise they need.
No, I dont. In the plainly worded paragraph I wrote I suggested that using a pluggable architecture for the backend means they can replace their providers with any other provider in the future, including themselves. But at the moment they trust, quite rightly, Amazon to scale more.
I was thinking the same. This has got to be the worst rumor ever. They did not build that big data center in Carolina for no reason.
Lets imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Amazon sold software which could be easily installed in a data centre and seamlessly tied the machines together in an n-tiered solution fit for purpose. Off the shelf software. Lets also imagine - and this wont take much - that Apple bought that software and used it rather than their own, and they didn't use their own machines in the data centre. The last bit takes no imagining, of course.
This isn't a million miles away from what may be happening. Except Apple is buying not an off the shelf solution, but a bespoke software service which guarantees uptime and has engineers paid to maintain the uptime. They may be leasing out the Carolina data centre to Amazon ( and MS) as a back end, for all we know.
In any case it couldn't be that the Carolina data centre would be useful for the entire world. Latency is too high. If you use MS and Amazon you get their better distributed data centres worldwide, and - as a quid pro quo - Apple may lease it's data centre to MS or Amazon to provide the service, or just to use as an additional data centre for either company. Its about buying expertise.
What are they filling the racks with? Not Xserve, at a guess.
Exactly, it has been an open secret for a while that Apple has been one of the first (or event the first) companies to build a very large cloud service on off-the-shelf components, which includes not just on the shelf hardware but also on-the-shelf software which includes Azure.
Listen to this podcasts for more details on how the really large cloud companies run their servers:
Do you understand the difference between rumour and fact?
So you understand that that is not an argument? Everybody here has the same information as to whether this is fact or not. The emotive response of some is to naturally dismiss the idea that Apple needs other companies; when it clearly uses other companies - including competitors - all the time.
The non-Apple machines in the data centre, the maps on iOS, the fabs of Samsung.
As others have said why did they build that data center.
To handle iCloud... but they don't have the capacity to support it worldwide.
Microsoft and Amazon have been gearing up for the move to the cloud for 5 or 6 years (or more). They don't only have the physical infrastructure in place but also the mature cloud software platforms.
I've been saying that Apple don't have the capacity to handle iCloud since it was rumored to exist... most people here just laughed at me though.
It makes sense and I can't believe some people here (not you ) are having trouble with this.
Apple get 3rd parties to manufacture most components for iDevices, they rely on the carriers to provide phone coms, they rely on power companies to power their office etc etc
The point being, when there is already a mature provider in the market there is no reason for Apple to "reinvent the wheel" unless they think they can do a better job.
Technically it is impossible to scale to the level that is needed with Windows servers. If you have worked with large installations: the problem with windows is that you need to exponentially increase the server for double performance.
This is the reason why almost not one single computer on top 500 uses windows. It could even be zero.
What I have read Apple has bought Netapp stuff with Sun/oracle servers for its data center.
If they would use HP stuff, they have to use Linux or port Darwin to it.
Technically it is impossible to scale to the level that is needed with Windows servers. If you have worked with large installations: the problem with windows is that you need to exponentially increase the server for double performance.
This is the reason why almost not one single computer on top 500 uses windows. It could even be zero.
What I have read Apple has bought Netapp stuff with Sun/oracle servers for its data center.
If they would use HP stuff, they have to use Linux or port Darwin to it.
Windows is great. But not in the server room.
I would prefer it was all Amazon. However MS might up their game.
Comments
As others have said why did they build that data center. Now maybe they have an intention here to use these services as a backup of sorts or maybe to serve far flung parts of the world. I just dont see Apple giving up something as critical as iCloud completely to third parties.
The article noted:
"User data will reportedly be stored in multiple locations across the three companies' servers"
It will be an international service too so in certain countries, it may be better to just use a local 3rd party server instead of e.g getting everyone in the UK, France and Germany to connect to the US data centre and possibly overload it.
Load balancing and data redundancy. When the data is this important, you'd want to have a number of copies within a limit of you being able to protect and manage it.
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.
Perhaps under Cook's leadership, Apple will take business computing more seriously...
Anyone, who a regular on Reddit.com, knows the quality of Amazon's offering.
I was looking forward to using iCloud too.
It shows [Apple] don't trust either [Microsoft or Amazon] completely.
It takes one to know one.
Or else it's for corporate strategic reasons.
It's not the one or the other. It is both.
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.
This must be one of the weirdest comments I have read in a while. I don't think you grasp what iCloud is about. The server load of iCloud is going to massive. MASSIVE! Every picture made by the millions of iOS users will be instantaneously uploaded (and pushed to their other iOS devices), all these users can backup their entire iOS device into the cloud, iWork in the cloud, users can upload their non-iTunes music, etc etc etc. Given the train wreck iDisk is, it would not be a surprise if they will rely on third party servers.
And iCloud getting stuff from other cloud services? Are you high?
There is a limit per person, which is less than a google email limit.
Apple's reliance on Microsoft and Amazon is not an indication that the company is standing still when it comes to the cloud, though. In April, it poached Kevin Timmons, Microsoft's data center chief, to help run its cloud initiatives.
Perhaps Josh Ong should realize that the First Amendment does not preclude anyone from falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre."
Unless he has evidence that Apple used illegal methods to acquire Timmons services, describing the hiring as such is equally illegal.
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.
So you think Apple built a giant data center for Microsoft and Amazon? That would kind of defeat the purpose of outsourcing. They are doing iCloud themselves. They have been running iTunes for some time, and MobileMe no longer sucks. They have a lot of experience with this stuff, actually, and have the resources to hire any additional expertise they need.
Regardless of how you look at it, it would be silly to not use iCloud just because of this. After all, as consumers, who cares how they make it happen as long as it is a good, reliable service?
As others have said why did they build that data center. Now maybe they have an intention here to use these services as a backup of sorts or maybe to serve far flung parts of the world. I just dont see Apple giving up something as critical as iCloud completely to third parties.
I suspect the article is based on incomplete info. That is the story is partly warped due to incomplete data.
I think you got it wrong, pal! This is about the 'plumbing'; the software and the nitty gritty of the data server loading, execution and the back end of iCloud. Not using Amazon's and MS's own data servers.
On my own take, if the story is indeed true, this just shows how sneaky Microsoft is with their senior staffs. First, Elop came to Nokia from MS then Nokia decided to use Windows Mobile 7 now, Kevin Timmons, Microsoft's data centre chief is working inside Apple, I don't what to know what he is going to do next
/conspiracy theory
LOL no.
What is it's new data center for then?
This got to be the dumbest rumor ever. To rely on your competitors to provide what will be a core service is suicide.
You guys desperate for hits or something? What's with the inaccurate/BS articles lately?
I was thinking the same. This has got to be the worst rumor ever. They did not build that big data center in Carolina for no reason.
So you think Apple built a giant data center for Microsoft and Amazon? That would kind of defeat the purpose of outsourcing. They are doing iCloud themselves. They have been running iTunes for some time, and MobileMe no longer sucks. They have a lot of experience with this stuff, actually, and have the resources to hire any additional expertise they need.
No, I dont. In the plainly worded paragraph I wrote I suggested that using a pluggable architecture for the backend means they can replace their providers with any other provider in the future, including themselves. But at the moment they trust, quite rightly, Amazon to scale more.
Amazon provides a real good service there.
This is quite pathetic on Apple's part... Using their competition because they can't do it themselves.
Perhaps under Cook's leadership, Apple will take business computing more seriously...
Anyone, who a regular on Reddit.com, knows the quality of Amazon's offering.
I was looking forward to using iCloud too.
Do you understand the difference between rumour and fact?
I was thinking the same. This has got to be the worst rumor ever. They did not build that big data center in Carolina for no reason.
Lets imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Amazon sold software which could be easily installed in a data centre and seamlessly tied the machines together in an n-tiered solution fit for purpose. Off the shelf software. Lets also imagine - and this wont take much - that Apple bought that software and used it rather than their own, and they didn't use their own machines in the data centre. The last bit takes no imagining, of course.
This isn't a million miles away from what may be happening. Except Apple is buying not an off the shelf solution, but a bespoke software service which guarantees uptime and has engineers paid to maintain the uptime. They may be leasing out the Carolina data centre to Amazon ( and MS) as a back end, for all we know.
In any case it couldn't be that the Carolina data centre would be useful for the entire world. Latency is too high. If you use MS and Amazon you get their better distributed data centres worldwide, and - as a quid pro quo - Apple may lease it's data centre to MS or Amazon to provide the service, or just to use as an additional data centre for either company. Its about buying expertise.
What are they filling the racks with? Not Xserve, at a guess.
Exactly, it has been an open secret for a while that Apple has been one of the first (or event the first) companies to build a very large cloud service on off-the-shelf components, which includes not just on the shelf hardware but also on-the-shelf software which includes Azure.
Listen to this podcasts for more details on how the really large cloud companies run their servers:
http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/22
Start at: 28:02, also have a look at the links on that page.
Do you understand the difference between rumour and fact?
So you understand that that is not an argument? Everybody here has the same information as to whether this is fact or not. The emotive response of some is to naturally dismiss the idea that Apple needs other companies; when it clearly uses other companies - including competitors - all the time.
The non-Apple machines in the data centre, the maps on iOS, the fabs of Samsung.
As others have said why did they build that data center.
To handle iCloud... but they don't have the capacity to support it worldwide.
Microsoft and Amazon have been gearing up for the move to the cloud for 5 or 6 years (or more). They don't only have the physical infrastructure in place but also the mature cloud software platforms.
I've been saying that Apple don't have the capacity to handle iCloud since it was rumored to exist... most people here just laughed at me though.
It makes sense and I can't believe some people here (not you
Apple get 3rd parties to manufacture most components for iDevices, they rely on the carriers to provide phone coms, they rely on power companies to power their office etc etc
The point being, when there is already a mature provider in the market there is no reason for Apple to "reinvent the wheel" unless they think they can do a better job.
Technically it is impossible to scale to the level that is needed with Windows servers. If you have worked with large installations: the problem with windows is that you need to exponentially increase the server for double performance.
This is the reason why almost not one single computer on top 500 uses windows. It could even be zero.
What I have read Apple has bought Netapp stuff with Sun/oracle servers for its data center.
If they would use HP stuff, they have to use Linux or port Darwin to it.
Windows is great. But not in the server room.
Mobileme today uses Sun/Oracle stuff.
Technically it is impossible to scale to the level that is needed with Windows servers. If you have worked with large installations: the problem with windows is that you need to exponentially increase the server for double performance.
This is the reason why almost not one single computer on top 500 uses windows. It could even be zero.
What I have read Apple has bought Netapp stuff with Sun/oracle servers for its data center.
If they would use HP stuff, they have to use Linux or port Darwin to it.
Windows is great. But not in the server room.
I would prefer it was all Amazon. However MS might up their game.