LinkedIn Twitter
Director, OpenShift Strategy at Red Hat. Founder of Rishidot Research, a research community focused on services world. His focus is on Platform Services, Infrastructure and the role of Open Source in the services era. Krish has been writing @ CloudAve from its inception and had also been part of GigaOm Pro Analyst Group. The opinions expressed here are his own and are neither representative of his employer, Red Hat, nor CloudAve, nor its sponsors.

9 responses to “Should AWS Be The Definition Of Cloud Computing?”

  1. Ray Nugent

    I think the point is less about what it’s called and more about if it has value to customers. My guess is Amazon released this after customers requested it. Being responsive to customers is a good thing.

    The debate about terms is a hangover from 2008. Let’s move on so we can embrace innovation and worry less about cloud washers and hair splitters.

    Ray Nugent
    CEO Smartscale Systems

  2. Basant

    Agree with you when you say – “…we cannot change it just because Amazon wants to do differently.” But at the same time, the definition must evolve with the changing customer needs to be in sync with time.

    Here’s another article on the same topic:

  3. Simon Munro

    I would argue that the underlying hardware (and hypervisor) for dedicated machines is still multi-tenant. Just because, for a brief period, it ran instances from one customer doesn’t mean that it is single tenant. When you shut down the instance one from another customer (or many) will start up on the same machine.
    The time aspect is significant because it is the variations in demand and load that gives the public cloud the ability to scale economically. If you have a single tenant private cloud the underlying capacity sits idle when there is no demand.

  4. Omar Sultan


    There is often a healthy distrust of IT by the rest of the company because IT often seems more obsessed with building stuff than actually doing things with it. I am reminded of this every time we delve into these “what is a cloud” conversations.

    At the end of the day, if you can go to the VP of Sales of offer to deliver him or her their CRM app in a cloud-y way, I will bet more often than not, they will not care if their app is being delivering via private cloud, public cloud, or ponies and pixie dust.

    AWS sees a customer problem (aka revenue opportunity) and is moving to address it without getting wrapped around the axle with debates on definitions or purity of cloud vision. Yay AWS.

    Customers are not looking to deploy clouds, they are looking to solve business problems like addressing growth, improving margins, managing risk better. AWS gets this and the market rewards them for their insight. On the other hand, the market, and closer to home, your stakeholders, will punish the folks that don’t.

    Just my two cents,

    Omar Sultan

  5. Ezhil Arasan Babaraj

    I agree with Omar. As simon mentioned, the underlying hypervisor still makes it as a multitenant model. I believe the controversy is created by people who does not like the innovative business model of AWS. I am sure it is an important factor to consider the dedicated resources as part of the Cloud definition.

  6. @somic

    Liked your post (as always), but suspect you might be in part confused by the name of this new AWS offering.

    If you don’t think of this new offering as “dedicated servers,” but instead think of it as an “instance placement control option” (you get ability to request that your instance be placed on a piece of hardware where no other instances are currently running or will be running for as long as your instance is running) – it all may become clear. IMHO, this offering does not have any impact on whether EC2/VPC is a true cloud or not, it’s just a confusing name.

    Now, whether they selected this name with intent to cause such confusion or confusion happened by accident – this could be an interesting question to ponder.