Cloud computing is transforming the way we communicate, argues Forbes magazine, predicting "Storage will find itself more and more removed from the device as thin clients and ubiquitous Internet access give us endless accessibility to our information from anywhere..."
But they also predict that applications will become more robust, since the cloud offers much easier ways to update and distribute software. The first widely popular cloud apps were primitive public/private services like Prodigy, AOL, and Hotmail. (One telecom billing solution company even celebrated their 15th year of providing cloud-based services.) But Forbes attributes the breakout popularity of the cloud to Amazon's AWS service and Apple's iCloud.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Forbes Considers if Cloud Computing Means Better Applications
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 19 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @12:33AM
As long as you can reach a server
and the company stays in business
and the government doesn't shut them down
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:09AM
,,,and for *good* evidence of that you should seed the clouds with your data they give AOL, Prodigy and Hotmail!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 23 2014, @02:00AM
... and as long as they *feel* like fixing something. Watch out for platform lock if you're not using open standards and protocols.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday July 23 2014, @05:33AM
and instant access to that data by:
1) you (well, most of the time)
2) any gov't (at least, using US legal reasoning, in that if a company has any physical presence in a country, that country can gain access to ALL data stored by that company no matter where it may be, who has paid for it or who has access to it)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meisterister on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:08AM
A lot of developers have this interesting notion that constant updates are actually useful or worthwhile. How many people really want their software to irreversibly change itself on a designer's whim, especially when the changes are often completely useless (Gmail's tabs feature) or outright negative (The removal of text and text-based descriptions on all of Gmail's buttons. How am I supposed to know that Monochrome Splotch A is supposed to mean anything when it doesn't have any explanation and likely changed at least once over the last few months?) For me, the convenience factor will never outweigh the inability to control my own data or refuse to update to Version X just because some graphic designer thought that he had to justify his income.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:35AM
Application on MY harddrive is in my CONTROL. I'll agree with the parent poster.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by clone141166 on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:35AM
Yes, a thousand times yes! I couldn't agree more, I have been saying exactly this for ages; more updates != better software. In fact it is usually quite the opposite effect. Access to a system that allows for easy distribution of small updates means developers have *less* motivation to thoroughly review and test their software. Usually they see "auto-updates" as an excuse for "oh it doesn't really matter, if it doesn't work we'll just patch it again later".
I have heard the mantra "release early, release often" and I understand the idea behind it is that by having many small iterations developers receive more feedback from users, but really this should be a closed process tested on a number of registered beta testers. Software changes shouldn't be tested on live users!
What you end up with is software that changes constantly at the whim of the developer, often to the detriment of the user. I still believe that *mandatory* software updates should be technically illegal. If I purchase software package X why is the developer allowed to come along later and make potentially sweeping changes to what I purchased without my consent? In no other industry is this practice acceptable. If I purchase a refrigerator, a Westinghouse technician doesn't show up a month later to remove the freezer component.
Software updates... just because you can doesn't mean you should.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @04:17AM
...Stop using the app.
If you HATE auto-updates that strongly,
that is what you have to do to avoid
the app accidentally (or on purpose?)
updating itself without your consent.
If the app dev team were TRULY on
their 'A-game', they wouldn't need
to constantly update their software.
The ONLY exception, such that it is,
is if there is a security risk or
a change in the underlying information
transferral protocols.
The OpenSSL Heartbleed attack is/(was?)
a 'great' example of a security risk
necessitating software update to
eliminate the security risk.
At this stage of the game in Internet
History, the underlying information
transferral protocols should NEVER
change as they are 'set in stone'
by published RFCs available on the
Internet for distribution (here:)
http://www.rfc-editor.org/download.html [rfc-editor.org]
If a new protocol is created, it is
hoped the creators go above and beyond
the call of duty to get the specification
of it picture perfect before they publish
it to the world. After that, it is
essentially too late to change things
without causing (major) disruptions....
(Score: 2, Informative) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:39AM
You mean the way AOL and QuickBooks (among many others) used to?
By launching our application you agree to the terms of us updating it whenever we, want for whatever reason we want, even if it renders your most current backup created moments ago useless and incompatible in case of any errors ... and you also hold us harmless for any data loss that occurs during the aforementioned unannounced forced update.
(Score: 1) by arslan on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:39AM
eh? The cloud doesn't actually prohibit you from deploying your own application and data where you have control over it - at least from a change management point of view. You seem to be arguing over the fact that an ASP model is bad, that not necessarily a cloud thing. Even without the cloud you can have an ASP model where the issues you mention can happen. Just because for consumer stuff the ASP model is prevalent, for the very reason that a consumer just consumes and un-involved in maintaining the app and data, does not mean that should be the case for commercial solutions.
Now if you're talking about more control over the artefacts (whether they are code or data) like the location, its exposure to unwanted entities, etc. then that is a different discussion. There are ways to contain/manage those even. It is different from a traditional way of thinking and managing your solutions, doesn't mean its necessarily a write off. The buzz word factor surely doesn't help..
(Score: 3, Informative) by meisterister on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:49AM
I was thinking a bit more from the perspective of an end user, who doesn't really have any prospects of up and starting their own cloud hosting service. Perhaps I was thinking more along the lines of consumer-level cloud applications, like Google Drive and the like.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:40AM
Cloud computing may mean an easier way to deploy complex setups and get access to large processing or storage for uses where buying doesn't pay. But in the long run it just has to many dependencies on corporate viability, clumsy administrators, mono culture, government fingers, broken telecomms etc. Sure it will grow as long as there are reckless risk takers.
It's time to secure your assets against stupid IT decisions inside corporations. Like lot of services depending on a central service provider that "oops".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Wednesday July 23 2014, @05:23AM
I'm not on the everything-cloud-is-bad-bad-bad bandwagon. Not only am I finally doing timely off-site backups, but I'm also a lot more productive because I have a good deal more information that can go with me anywhere I can hit hit net, including the beach. (And yes, this has served me.) No, the companies involved suddenly shutting down will not mean I will lose my data, merely the off-site copy. Yes, I know it's likely they can see it, I don't care because it's not private. Something like 95% of this data I have on these services came from places I've found or purchased from around the web. The rest of it is stuff I've created for work that will not harm me in any way if said data were to get out. Heck, even a good deal of the TV I watch is coming from 'the cloud.' I watch one episode on the TV, I watch the next episode on my phone while I work out. At the end of the day I save time, get more done, and am less likely to suffer damage at the hands of computer failure. (Knock on wood...)
Perhaps instead of griping about "the st00pid Cloudd!!!!!!" maybe the energy should be put into how to alleviate some of the issues it raises. For example: Let's get some more interest out there in data not leaving a computer unencrypted like SpiderOak does. Let's put pressure on Apple to make their app store provide access to earlier versions of apps. There are plenty of options, but generic poo-poo'ing of a concept that's already got its foothold and will only grow from here isn't doing any good.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday July 23 2014, @02:37PM
Maybe it is better that you outsource your IT operations.
Oh, and you think streaming a TV show is "the cloud"? No wonder...
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 23 2014, @03:58PM
Two misses in a row. Maybe you should ask questions instead of taking random shots in the dark. I'll give you a hint: a VPN is not off-site backup.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:16PM
So your off-site backup is what you were looking at from the beach? I would prefer real-time data. But whatever meets your needs.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:30PM
Yep.
"I would prefer real-time data."
Got that, too.
"But whatever meets your needs."
Fail.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday July 24 2014, @12:24AM
Hahahahaa!
At least the silver lining is you nicely illustrated why my original post needed to be made.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @01:38PM
"But they also predict that applications will become more robust, since the cloud offers much easier ways to update and distribute software."
Well, the only time when things usually break for me is when some software gets updated. Thus, more easy (and thus presumably more frequent) software updates mean less robust software to me.
Moreover as added malus, when using a cloud service you cannot even decide to keep the old version until you know what problems to expect from the update, or to not update at all if you learn it would create unacceptable problems for you. And if after updating you find the update breaks things for you, the cloud will also not let you just go back to the previous version.
Not to mention that you get additional error sources due to network problems. Not to mention that you'd not be able to work without a network connection. And yes, I've used my laptop quite often at places where I couldn't get a decent connection (or even no connection at all), or where getting a connection would have added cost which I was not willing to pay.