As I go from conference to conference, I’m seeing more and more examples of people talking about the “open cloud.” Proponents talk about choice, flexibility and the inherent safety of the open cloud. Opponents, on the other hand, point to fragmentation, immaturity and concerns about anything that is available without a big price tag. But in talking about open cloud with people, I was struck by how little clarity actually exists about what constitutes “open” in relation to the cloud. You’d think a simple word like open would be easy to assign a meaning to but alas, not!
So in order to draw some clarity into the discussion, I decided to embark on a series of discussions about the open cloud. First up I got together with friend and colleague Krishnan Subramanian, founder and principle researcher at Rishidot Research. We were joined by Jonathan Bryce, one of the leading figures in the OpenStack movement.
In our wide ranging conversation we developed some definitions around open cloud, articulated why it was important and touched on Krish’s basis for being so bullish about federated clouds as a safety net for customers.
The video is embedded below – I’d love to hear your thoughts.
(Cross-posted @ The Diversity Blog – SaaS, Cloud & Business Strategy)
“Open cloud” seems to focus on a (limited) worldview that ignores the proprietary to a fault. Open needs to include products/vendors/solutions that organizations have already invested in. Rip-and-replace not always likely or prudent. Perhaps, the federated cloud concept is a way to address this. However, much of the discussions about this, to date, resemble inside baseball.
If you need a listing of investors and venture capital firms, check out this web page: http://www.investormailinglist.com I’ve got clients which have made use of their listing to secure funding and it’s updated daily. All industries are covered as well.