Skip to main content

CloudCon – Funny Vendor Quotes


I’m sitting at CloudCon III – SaaSCon 2011.  It’s “a Cloud Conference with a focus on Software as a Service.”  Sadly the presentations are of limited value, with the same confusion I noted in my “Impressions” article (i.e. every IT business marketing department is trying to take advantage of it and rebrand their abilities “Cloud”).

While not of particular technical knowledge value, they to tend to result in humorous statements by the presenters…

IBM 

“80% of Fortune 100 companies are using IBM cloud capabilities.”  Wow, you’ve got 80 customers?  Really?  (Those Fortune 100 companies, that spent from $200 million to $1 billion per year on IT costs, are generally using some of every capability of every major IT vendor.)

Google

“4 million businesses have gone Google.”  As of 2007, the US Census Bureau reported there are 29,413,039 businesses in the U.S.  Assuming Google’s talking just about the U.S. (and I don’t think they were), that’s a 13% market penetration!  Wow!  (Not!)  If were were to take 2011 numbers and go worldwide, it might be 3% penetration.  Double wow!  (Double not!)

“We expected cloud email to be a growth industry and a challenge to Microsoft in the Enterprise.”  Chuckle.  This is your Cloud goal?  Email?

"Chromebooks – nothing but a browser, configured via the cloud, automatic upgrades, subscription model. Strong processor, wifi, 3G, battery lasts a full day. No hard drive.  Easy to replace a traditional laptop.  Happy IT managers and end users.”  Oh, and costs $499 in the US for a 12.1 inch netbook, $200 more than a Windows netbook with 1/2 the ability.  #Fail

“What the cloud offers: Enhanced Security”.  You’ve didn’t actually say this?  You couldn’t have actually said this!  Savings, definitely.  Ease of access to abilities, yes.  Flexibility, definitely.  Enhanced security, no way in h#ll.  If you’re going cloud you BETTER be spending A LOT more time layering on the security!

Symantec

“Software as a Service, Cloud, Managed Services, Hosted Services, Outsourcing – we just change the name now and then to keep it fresh.”  Well that was refreshingly honest.

“Strength in depth.  A cloud based solution, a gateway based solution, a desktop based solution, all from different vendors.  It’s expensive, but when places are serious about security this is what they do.”  Is someone really talking straight?  So unusual not sure if I can handle it.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disast...
Read more

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology...
Read more

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider ...
Read more