“The cloud and its promises of web-based software, near limitless storage, and streaming media services, has long been predicted as the next arena for the tech industry’s heavyweights to do battle,” Dan Howley reports for LAPTOP Magazine.
“While Google and Microsoft have been offering cloud services for years, each company has focused more on advanced or enterprise users,” Howley reports. “Then, in June, Apple unveiled iCloud, which, when it launches this fall, will attempt to do what the competition has failed to do: make the cloud ubiquitous without being intimidating.”
Howley reports, “Unlike a traditional cloud service, where users manually upload and download their data, Apple’s approach takes the work out of the equation. Accessing the service, for example, is as simple as downloading iOS 5 or buying a device with the software pre-installed. Many aspects of the service are attached to already-existing programs, such as iTunes, and take place behind the scenes.”
Read more in the full article here.
This question reminds me of the old days when people talked about the big three automakers and how powerful they were. Then one day OPEC showed the world who really had all the power. The folks who own the oil. In the same way, Apple, Google, and Microsoft are going to have their asses handed to them by a new bandwidth cartel. Time Warner, COMCAST, AT&T, and VERIZON will win the cloud wars, they own the cloud. And with morons claiming that Net Neutrality is “evil government regulation” nothing stands in their way.
I was thinking this while reading the story & it’s so correct.
Well said!
I call BS. It’s easier to change your dumb com-line provider than your tech plattform. In addtition there is more competition. The cloud is worldwide. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc are US only and are of no interest whatsoever for the rest of the world (95%).
However, net neutrality is very important and needed. Indeed.
Maybe in the US, where corporations rule over the politicians.
I live in Switzerland where many cities have public Wi-Fi, some of it provided by the gov, some by private companies. Some friends of mine have an iPod touch instead of an iPhone… Internet access is viewed like streets or electric light in the cities…
Cartels are forbidden by the law, so prices for internet are lower than in the US (while minimal income – BurgerKing etc – here is around 18$ per hour). It all works because there is nearly no corruption. Politicians serve the public, not the corporations. We have a public vote for every new law; raising taxes? everybody can vote yes or no (yes, we vote very often to raise taxes). So we have gay marriage and it’s forbidden for muslims to build minarets, healthcare for all and the gov isn’t allowed to look into your bank account.
Here we are amazed that US politicians talk about “freedom” while the US citizens don’t even have the right to vote their laws directly. It’s crazy how well the US-freedom-propaganda-machine works, with its left-right-battles and the funny actors that give the presidential candidates and presidents.
I really hope the US come back, don’t want China to rule the world.
Satellites, it’s what’s for dinner.
Good call, The.
Time will show if one of these guys can find a way to customers without the bandwidth cartel. Google’s already making an attempt… heck, they could all get together and fund something that essentially creates an end run around them all.
Not likely.
The thing is, Google who used to be in favor of Net Neutrality decided a tiered Internet with toll booths suits them better. So they are not in favor of paying blood money to the cartel to make sure that packets fly faster to them completely violating the totally simple concept of Net Neutrality.
I don’t see Apple or Google or Microsoft building a new global infrastructure either.
The government, which is supposed to look out for our interests, is in favor not only of rejecting the concept of Net Neutrality but of selling additional public bandwidth to the cartel so they can bury it and prevent competition.
should say “they are now in favor”
Thelonious,
Just remember that this is not an exception to a rule. Government regulation is not a bad thing; it’s what government is for. To regulate. Government’s role is to insure fairness in order to facilitate freedom.
We all know that Jefferson said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But it’s easy to forget that this applies not only to personal freedom, but to market freedom as well. Think about it. Without government’s vigilant, diligent work to ensure a level playing field, there is no free market.
That’s why government regulation of corporations is necessary: to protect competition and foster real capitalism. Without it, monopolists and crooked dealers will always prevail, whether they be big oil, Microsoft, or Comcast.
Cheers.
The concept of “government abuse of power is better than corporate abuse of power” is still open to debate, and there are plenty of people on both sides who are NOT morons. Bad corporations steal and cheat- bad governments do that and also commit genocide. I still believe global competition and communication is the most hopeful factor in preventing a broadband or tech cartel (or government) from exercising too much control.
Please Check me out
http://www.appleexclusives.com
Enough with the spam already. This is a forum not a billboard. Imagine if everyone did that. Your not even adding anything with your link at the bottom. MDN, please get rid of this tool
I like it – does it look too much like apple own website.
Apple will win the cloud war on the retail side; that is, selling it to customers. Microsoft will win the cloud war on the wholesale side; that is, supplying it to Apple. Google will just gurgle down the drain. Slowly.
I’m reminded of the truism that it wasn’t the prospectors who made money during the last big gold rush. It was the people who supplied the prospectors.
Advantage: Microsoft.
“Microsoft will win the cloud war on the wholesale side; that is, supplying it to Apple.”
You’re going to have to explain that one. Hopefully you are not going by the now dead and buried rumor that Apple run their server farm on MS Windows Server. They are NOT!
Knowing that fact, what ‘wholesale’ are you talking about? Who gives a rat’s about Microsoft regarding Apple beyond their Office suite?
Followup: I believe it was The Register that began the Microsoft Azure / Amazon Web Services rumor. The rumor proliferated from there. I have seen zero verification. We’ll have to wait for facts.
“Apple’s iCloud runs on Microsoft and Amazon services”
My suspicion, somewhat indicted in The Register rumor article: That Apple are STARTING iCloud using pre-existing services. They will then transition to their own server farms, date unknown.
IOW: If the rumor is true, Apple’s North Carolina server farm is not yet ready for prime time. Apple’s server farm software unknown.
Still, I like Apple’s cloud concept better, where, as Jobs said, it’s not a hard disk in the sky. Rather, it seems more of a transfer engine, getting your information seamlessly between all of your devices.
“While Google and Microsoft have been offering cloud services for years …”
Apple has been arguably doing it longer than both, dating right back to iTools.
It actually annoys me that Apple has changed the name of its cloud service with each new attempt. MobileMe, while I personally dislike it, is a more consumer-friendly brand than iCloud.
When does this war of the clouds start.
I shall set my pvr to record it. Thanks.
Apple is not trying to win the “cloud war.” Apple’s goal is winning the hardware war; that’s where Apple makes most of its profit (it’s not from the “cloud” nor is it going to be). iCloud is just another weapon to keep the lead in the hardware war, just as iTunes, the various “stores,” and software (such as iOS, Mac OS X, and iLife) are the existing weapons.
Apple’s direct opponents are not Microsoft and Google; they are the other hardware makers (who mostly rely on Microsoft and Google for software). Note that Apple’s legal battles are with the likes of Motorola, HTC, and Samsung (not Google).
Once again, Apple has the advantage, because Apple has a unique strategy that others cannot replicate easily. So while Google (and Microsoft) must profit directly from cloud-based services (which makes the services overbearing and less useful), Apple just needs to use iCloud to further enhance the already desirable hardware products. See, it’s not just different rules… Apple plays a totally different game.
While what you say is factual, that same fact gets lost in the utter success of the weapons themselves.
But Apple does NOT make most of its profit from software and services. So while they are VERY successful, and iCloud may be too, the main goal is still to profit from selling the hardware, not to make any particular service a success. The “weapons” just enhance the hardware and makes selling the hardware easier.
Because the software and services do NOT need to be Apple profit center, Apple designs then to be user-friendly, unobtrusive (not “center stage”), and affordable (break-even is fine). Therefore, they also become popular, along with the hardware; Google and Microsoft cannot match Apple, because they need to turn a profit on software and services.
And that’s my point… Apple’s “game” is totally different from the one that Google and Microsoft plays. And Apple plays by different rules compared to most other competing hardware makers, because Apple does not rely on Google and Microsoft for software and services.
Actually, Ken, as things stand at the moment it appears that Apple IS using Microsoft’s Azure for iCloud. Apple appears to be using HP servers internally and for OS they have been big users of SunOS in the past. They have never used their own server hardware and unsurprisingly never used OSX Server either.
The server is the technical mechanism that allows the service to exist and operate. iCloud is a service, not a mechanism. There is a lot more to designing a service than selecting the server type and operating software it runs.
And that IS Apple’s area of expertise. Designing the method of interaction between the human and the mechanism (whether it’s a server farm, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or iPod).
Also, your point is not relevant to my original point. Apple is not trying to win this so-called “cloud war.” iCloud is a service that enhanced Apple’s hardware. The actual “war” in on the hardware front.
Ken: I beg to differ.
You said, “and Apple plays by different rules compared to most other competing hardware makers, because Apple does not rely on Google and Microsoft for software and services.”
I simply pointed out that it appears Apple does rely on Microsoft software and services (and Amazon, BTW). I am not sure how you could conclude my response was not relevant. It is very much on point!
@ Michael Burke
You are referring to Apple using certain server hardware and operating software. That is all invisible to the end user. It is not integral to the user experience. Apple could have selected other server hardware and operating software, and the design of the service (in terms of user interaction) would not change. Therefore, it is not relevant. It is about as relevant as the brand of air condition equipment Apple select for its server farm buildings.
Apple’s competition uses Google and Microsoft software/services front and center. It is VERY visible to the users, and integral to the user experience.
Michael, can you please provide a reference regarding “it appears that Apple IS using Microsoft’s Azure for iCloud.”
I continue to assert that with Apple’s multitude of talent in UNIX as well as WebObjects, WTF would Apple want with Microsoft anything?! Apple running Azure servers? That sounds like a recipe for disaster with whipped turd a la mode. I pray this is mere bogus rumor.
:-Q*******
http://www.zanura.com/blog/news/apple%E2%80%99s-icloud-running-on-windows-azure-network/
There is a link to the info.
If true, i suspect it is a temporary arrangement until Apples own datacenter is fully up to speed. Building a large datacenter is one thing, the software side is major undertaking also.
It would make sense to do it in phases and leverage existing offerings to maximize reliability in the beginning.
Windows userland may suck but the NT kernel and the underlying architecture of windows is sound for serving data. MS operates more than one large datacenter using azure. The MS Datacenter in dublin over in the UK is roughly 700,000 square feet in size and there are at least two more in the US clocking in at 300,000 and 400,000 sq each.
They have the ability to deliver and have been working on clustering technology with NT since at least 1996.
To be completely correct, it is an ecosystem war – hardware and software and services blended together. And Apple is slowly increasing the contribution of the services to its bottom line. That is why Apple was not willing to cede the apps to the wireless carriers.
Even if you look at it that way, Apple is playing a different game from most of the “competition” because Apple controls its own “ecosystem.”
And this “blending together” thing is not even true about most of the competition… Google puts the “cloud” and Android (and whatever services) front and center, not as a “blended” part of an ecosystem. Microsoft puts Windows (whether it’s Windows 7, Windows 8, or Windows Phone) front and center. The hardware makers put the hardware (that may use Google and/or Microsoft) front and center. Corporate “egos,” conflicting agendas, and mutual distrust get in the way of creating “hardware and software and services blended together.” Except for Apple, it’s a fantasy…
Palm did control its ecosystem, but it are gone. HP could have done so, but gave up. RIM is failing. So Apple has the only successful fully integrated (blended) “ecosystem,” because Apple puts USER EXPERIENCE front and center, not the separate parts that make up the ecosystem.
In a reply to @Ken above, I pointed out and commented upon the MS Azure/AWS rumor article by The Register.
Yet another “war”? Really, can our collective imagination go no further than this?
The guy is a poor researcher as well as unimaginative. His article comes off as yet-another phoned-in-from-the-beach leftover from August. I provide a bit of actual history below that tears his article to shreads.
Very naughty Dan Howley. Do your homework! 😳
–>spelling error<–
The guy is a poor researcher as well as unimaginative. His article comes off as yet-another phoned-in-from-the-beach leftover from August. I provide a bit of actual history below that tears his article to shreds.
Very naughty Dan Howley. Do your homework! 😳
So they are not in favor of paying blood money to the cartel to make sure that packets fly faster to them completely violating the totally simple concept of Net Neutrality.
TechTard ALERT!
“While Google and Microsoft have been offering cloud services for years…”
Technically, in 2000 Apple has been began offering ‘Cloud’ services to customers beginning with iDisk back in the Mac OS 9 days via iTools. It was free at that point. Now most of it is free again ELEVEN years later.
MSN Windows Live didn’t begin until 2005. Gmail didn’t start until 2004 and didn’t go public until 2007. Google Docs didn’t start until early 2010.
Just because the terminology changed (“Cloud”) doesn’t mean it hasn’t been available in some form for the last decade+ for Apple users. Apple is hardly a follower in cloud computing. Sorry Dan Howley. 😛
True however MS built a massive datacenter presence in the 90s. Hotmail alone is a monster cloud service and MSN was pushing a ton of content as well.
Id say they have all been at it awhile. All google really is, is a big cloud service.
– CompuServe: Born in 1969. Went public in 1975. Created CompuServe Network Services in 1982.
– AppleLink: Born in 1985.
– FirstClass: Goes public in 1990.
– AOL: Born in 1991 (using Apple’s AppleLink technology)
– eWorld: Born in 1994 (using AOL technology), died in 1996.
– HoTMaiL: Born in 1996. Microsoft bought them in 1997. (Note the word ‘bought’, as per usual for MS).
– The Microsoft Network: Born in 1995. Renamed MSN. It was modeled on previously existing AOL technology, which was created from previously existing Apple technology.
Conclusion: Apple is hardly a follower in cloud computing. But they certainly didn’t invent it.
I have a vague (and possibly imaginary) memory of an Apple online offering in the days of dialup. It was configured as a town or neighbourhood and you could visit various buildings that were metaphors for services. There wasn’t much there and it didn’t last long. It was when we were using The Well. Was that iTools?
Maybe it was one of these two, AppleLink or eWorld ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppleLink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWorld
The lineage: Dialup Bulletin-Boards ->Apple’s AppleLink -> AOL -> eWorld. (Yes, AOL was built on Apple’s AppleLink tech).
I considered eWorld to be much nicer than AOL. But it never caught on and wasn’t developed to its full potential. And anyway, in 1995 the World Wide Web became usable by mere humans, killing off most of the bulletin board culture. (I hear FirstClass still lives on).
Wonder what Apple will do with that BIG pile of money…. Buy one of the Cartel members and beat the rest to a pulp …. Then they own the WHOLE game …. Hardware. Software, bandwidth provider , Apple Tv and finally supplying content… The circle completed
That’s what I have been wondering. What if they buy Sprint and put pressure to all the competitors with a complete ecosystem. Even it’s US only it would give them a leg up.
Really hoping for the best fo Apple on this one.
I think Apple’s angle is more technically difficult in terms of execution. iCloud works for you behind the scenes for the most part. The competition’s cloud offerings really don’t. If Apple pulls off iCloud, it will be a huge win and a hard thing for others to implement quickly, whereas it won’t take much for Apple to add their style services if needed.
I think Apple wins here and that the payoff is going to grow dramatically as they continue to advance iCloud capabilities along with iOS and OS X.
Why is it win the final goal. Personally I think everybody will carve a space and users will gravitate to what they need. Now, I will say this. When Apple puts it’s sights on something, they usually do it in a way that is very hard to emulate. iCloud might be such an endeavor. But Apple has and will never pander to the enterprise. At least not directly, that is were Google and MS want to be.
Begun, the Cloud Wars have.