I wonder how much revenue they get each month from people subscribing. So what if they spend 30 million a month. They also get many millions a month in subscription revenue I would assume.
I pay Apple 99 cents X 2 each month to make sure that I have enough space for storing what I want on a few accounts.
I wonder how much revenue they get each month from people subscribing. So what if they spend 30 million a month. They also get many millions a month in subscription revenue I would assume.
I pay Apple 99 cents X 2 each month to make sure that I have enough space for storing what I want on a few accounts.
For Apple Music, they are speculated to have 50m subscribers. 50m x $12/mo = $600m/mo. $12 is basically individual and family subscriptions at 3:2 ratios.
iCloud storage subscriptions? 20m at $5 per month? That would be $100m/mo. Really have no idea here. I have the $10/mo subscription for 2TB. If there are 20m people like me, thanks a pretty big chunk of change. If it is 50m iCloud subscribers at $3/mo average? $150m/month.
The 30m per mo is really a single digit fraction, at most, of their storage and server infrastructure costs. It’s not that meaningful to really talk about. Maybe they just use AWS to test things out before rolling it into their own servers.
So what are all the Data Center Apple has put in being used for?
I thought the data centers were for AI/Siri Machine Learning and iCloud storage. What a surprise to read Amazon is storing my backup. Thought Apple was developing their own hardware for iCloud storage to minimize security issues.
It took Amazon itself years to transfer its retail infrastructure fully over to AWS. I don't even know if it's even 100% complete now. I wouldn't expect Apple's data centers to be able to handle the entirely of iCloud this quickly. It's a slow, deliberate, thoroughly tested process that'll take years.
Infrastructure services aren't very sexy, but once the "water" stops squirting out of the pipes the sexy things turn really ugly really fast. I do wish Apple had more organic services infrastructure so they didn't have to go running to Amazon or Microsoft or Google to keep their "water" flowing. This isn't something that Apple can pivot on overnight. Unless they started laying pipe for their own infrastructure services a decade ago that considered the fat pipes that 5G technology will require they are going to have a monumental challenge trying to catch up to the market leaders. The one thing that gives me hope is a feeling that the number of smart people employed at Apple seems to be at a level that far exceeds what it takes to support their current product and non-infrastructure services portfolio. They must have some very sizable projects underway that we have no insight into from the outside. Hopefully, one of these is to be able to support more of their infrastructure needs using their own technology, people, and intellectual property.
Apple using AWS is not a big revelation. Most large companies are using AWS in some capacity. Like most large companies, Apple is also likely using MS Azure and Google Cloud Platform as well. Most companies are utilizing a 'Hybrid' Cloud vs. On-Premise strategy and Apple is really no different. It's all a question of speed, agility, and cost with on-premise still having the lowest longterm cost...
30 million a month? You know costs will just continue to go up. Seems like if you can build your own, in the long run Apple would save money and not have to rely on someone else. Maybe it just makes sense money wise that Amazon is much cheaper then having their own. That's Apple's way of thinking.
Apple is relatively new to the Data Center game, and doesn't have anywhere near the capacity they need. And Apple is not even close to where Google is, in terms of playing the cloud game, so their data center needs will only keep increasing as they get their act together.
$360M might seem a lot, but it not even a drop in the bucket for Apple. And chances are, that like every other supplier, Apple can squeeze out extremely attractive pricing from Amazon, by guaranteeing a massive consumption, and probably even prepaying for some of the usage.
Fortunately, they’ve been laying the groundwork for their own massive services for many years. It may take just a little longer yet, but that’s ok. Once it’s done, they’ll likely not only be servicing themselves, but third parties as well.
Azure isn’t all that and really neither is aws. I’d love to move some things to an Apple platform once they’ve got it done.
Who else thinks this a poor business decision on Apple's part?
I would rather see them align with Microsoft (Azure) than Amazon (AWS). I see Microsoft as less of a competitor than Amazon (in many spaces).
And, what are all those Apple owned server farms doing besides using solar panels? With all of that propaganda Apple pushes out, I would have never thought they are paying Amazon $30 million a month,
I don't see it as a bad decision in terms of competition, but I do wonder why Apple needs this at all with all their efforts made to build out massive data centers. I can see have backups for systems that aren't on your hardware design, but this feels more like Apple's own data centers aren't performing well. Can that really be the cause? I don't think that's likely so I think I'm missing some key details.
Many large companies have both private and public cloud infrastructure. Public cloud infrastructure like AWS is great for scaling up as required for meeting peak capacity, vs. overbuilding in private DC for short peaks. Some companies keep sensitive information in their private DCs, with other apps going into public. Apple has so many services that a blended approach likely fits.
Who else thinks this a poor business decision on Apple's part?
I would rather see them align with Microsoft (Azure) than Amazon (AWS). I see Microsoft as less of a competitor than Amazon (in many spaces).
And, what are all those Apple owned server farms doing besides using solar panels? With all of that propaganda Apple pushes out, I would have never thought they are paying Amazon $30 million a month,
I don't see it as a bad decision in terms of competition, but I do wonder why Apple needs this at all with all their efforts made to build out massive data centers. I can see have backups for systems that aren't on your hardware design, but this feels more like Apple's own data centers aren't performing well. Can that really be the cause? I don't think that's likely so I think I'm missing some key details.
Many large companies have both private and public cloud infrastructure. Public cloud infrastructure like AWS is great for scaling up as required for meeting peak capacity, vs. overbuilding in private DC for short peaks. Some companies keep sensitive information in their private DCs, with other apps going into public. Apple has so many services that a blended approach likely fits.
This is just $30M per month. That seems pretty small when you consider Apple's personal investments and needs. I found some older lists of AWS clients on Quora but I can't get a grasp of the scale that other companies could require per month with AWS.
I do wonder if it's for primary data, an auxiliary resource, a temp solution while certain regions aren't yet supported as well as they need to be for speeed/reliability, just some old system that's still enabled and under contract, and/or part of an ongoing agreement with Amazon that, perhaps, is why Apple products are once again sold on Amazon.
Comments
I pay Apple 99 cents X 2 each month to make sure that I have enough space for storing what I want on a few accounts.
iCloud storage subscriptions? 20m at $5 per month? That would be $100m/mo. Really have no idea here. I have the $10/mo subscription for 2TB. If there are 20m people like me, thanks a pretty big chunk of change. If it is 50m iCloud subscribers at $3/mo average? $150m/month.
The 30m per mo is really a single digit fraction, at most, of their storage and server infrastructure costs. It’s not that meaningful to really talk about. Maybe they just use AWS to test things out before rolling it into their own servers.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/12/apple-may-have-been-paid-95b-by-google-in-2018-to-stay-default-safari-search-option
$360M might seem a lot, but it not even a drop in the bucket for Apple. And chances are, that like every other supplier, Apple can squeeze out extremely attractive pricing from Amazon, by guaranteeing a massive consumption, and probably even prepaying for some of the usage.
Fortunately, they’ve been laying the groundwork for their own massive services for many years. It may take just a little longer yet, but that’s ok. Once it’s done, they’ll likely not only be servicing themselves, but third parties as well.
Azure isn’t all that and really neither is aws. I’d love to move some things to an Apple platform once they’ve got it done.
I do wonder if it's for primary data, an auxiliary resource, a temp solution while certain regions aren't yet supported as well as they need to be for speeed/reliability, just some old system that's still enabled and under contract, and/or part of an ongoing agreement with Amazon that, perhaps, is why Apple products are once again sold on Amazon.