Woz Predicts 'Horrible Problems' With Cloud Computing

TechLarry said:
I've been saying this for years.

I can see it now. A company of 25,000 people sets up all their email, document storage, working groups, etc.. in the cloud and then there is an outage or natural disaster. The recent multi-week power outage on the Eastern Coast is a damned fine example.

Now, instead of only having workers in the affected area down, you have the ENTIRE company down. No one can fill in for anyone. The company is dead in it's tracks.

Cloud computing is ok for duplication/access, but using it as a sole operating method is the dumbest idea any CIO could ever come up with. There WILL eventually be an outage, and that CIO will be out of a job, and the company potentially millions.
Click to expand...

If a company going to move to the cloud, they need to do it right, which means going with a solution that provides duplication of services in multiple geographic locations. The problem is that this cost big $$$, and conflicts with one of the main reasons companies want to move to the cloud; to save money.

I predict this will end badly for some small companies when the low-cost cloud provided shuts down and they loose all thier data.
 
With everyone trying to take control of the internet, and Apple already demonstrating that security can be penetrated, I wouldn't want personal/highly sensitive information being in the cloud...So who's going to be surprised when we find out that the NSA/CIA/FBI/Local Law Enforcement, had been keeping their information on cloud and it got compromised?
 
I don't have any problem with "cloud computing", it is what it is.

The problem is when people buy into it like it's some sort of special concept.

It's really not. Gmail is a great example of "cloud computing" but Internet Email has been around for over a decade. Remote storage services aren't really anything new either, but simply telling your customers that you are storing their files on the internet, and that they will be using advanced web pages that replicate the functions of common programs doesn't exactly sound revolutionary. It sounds like what everyone has already been doing for years with a new name slapped on it so it sounds trendy.

And I agree, the loss of control is disturbing. I've already had Microsoft completely clear out all existing emails in my Hotmail inbox because I didn't log-on for a while. Nice of them to assume that I didn't need any of those emails. And I mean, hasn't everyone always wanted to pay a monthly subscription for Office?
 
Europeans have considered this fact - if you put it into the "cloud" and the "cloud" has storage in the US, the US gov't can do whatever they like with it due to the Patriot Act
 
It is amazing how stupid people are, especially idiot managers with no tech savvy tasked with decision making for business.

Here is the funniest scenario I see, you put all your shit on the Cloud. The company decides to change the terms of service agreement unilaterally such that "all your shit are belong them", and you can either agree to the new terms or not.... however, you can no longer access your data/programs until you DO agree. Even if you agree only long enough to download and move all your shit, they now made a copy, thanks for playing sucker.

About as fucked up as Facebook "OWNING" the rights to all you photo's and information that you put on the site.... and hundreds of millions of fools have just walked over that cliff in gleeful ignorance of what that might mean long term.
 
I use Skydrive for photos taken from my phone so I can easily get to them and download them back to my desktop without having to plug the phone in. It's also a great tool for storing and editing Office docs on the fly. However, I would never in a million years trust my entire data system to full internet backup.

When I can buy a 2TB external HDD for relatively next to nothing, know the information is safe because I have the drive in my possession, and have access to that information 24/7 without using precious bandwidth the internet providers seem so determined to cap, why would anyone want to move to the cloud?

That's just asinine.
 
Cantonious said:
We have a winner.
Steam provides the infrastructure to download and authorize games. You have the privilege of playing the games.
Cloud is generally used to host data/information that you generated or created. If you don't safeguard it (read: encrypt) prior to sending it to the cloud, they will mine it.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's what I'm thinking. I have a number of cloud services open... but I haven't really used ... any of them to really store anything except Google docs. And most of that is homework, which I no longer need, works from other people, or random shit I post up because it's a place to post up... like Screenshots of Torchlight 2 glitches I found.

That said, I do have one or 2 files that were just ideas being written down on there, since it's convenient but none of that really matters, I have tons of random ideas just floating about.

niconx said:
Truecrypt over TCP/IP. I want it.
Click to expand...

As do I.
 
When storage devices get small enough that you can have 1TB in your phone, then cloud won't matter anymore.

With what seems like a breach every week its a dumb idea to upload your data to a cloud. Now private cloud servers in a company is a different thing. But I'm talking about people just using cloud like a harddrive.
 
All Cloud settings are off on steam, it only took 2 brain cells to do it and all my steam games are downloaded and installed on my HD, I know I checked (poked, tweaked err). And no cloud sync... etc etc. Sorry i do not trust remote backups, ever... is why I have recording medium to back up my stuff and is stored away.
 
Cloud stands for something...

C-ompanies
L-etting
O-thers
U-ndermine
D-ata

I really hate the term because techies know there is no such thing as a "Cloud", more like a point of demarcation...someone else is still doing something technical...companies are just paying someone else to do it.
 
The closest thing to the cloud I would ever use is lease or colo a server and host something there. (which I do now for lot of my web stuff given I don't have enough bandwidth to host it at home) But for infrastructure that I use only at home it makes more sense to have the servers at home. Same deal if I was running a company. There are multiple issues with cloud computing that lot of people overlook such as:

- Data security, as mentioned in that article.
- Availability, if your internet goes down, you are dead in the water.
- Service availability: If that company goes tits up, changes their business model in an impacting way (like pricing scheme) you are screwed.

The more of your infrastructure you can own, the better it is. The more control you have.

Cloud can serve as a good backup, such as using cloud storage to backup your (encrypted) data but even then, I would colo a server way before actually using a cloud service. At least it's still your own hardware and you have root access.
 
Clouds are fine for entertainment media if you're not embarassed for the world to find out what you listen to or watch.
 
jpm100 said:
Clouds are fine for entertainment media if you're not embarassed for the world to find out what you listen to or watch.
Click to expand...

You should just throw it out there. You'd be surprised at how many other people like Miley and Justin.
 
So because Woz says it, we should take it seriously now? I guess I need to start checking with Woz more often!!
 
I am joining this conversation late but it is kind of relevant to something I am working on. I am trying to get a small company to use web conferencing. It is an initiative started by the person I report to. It was not my decision. Anyway, The CEO wants it too but is very concerned about security. Most of the providers are host and our people are concerned that someone could hack into the meeting. There will be confidential and financial discussions. So, I have been looking around and I found a web conferencing appliance. I never hear the word appliance used for things not in the kitchen or laundry room so I am a little skeptical. Apparently this device is the most secure because you can install it on your network behind the firewall. I am not the most tech savvy but I get a little bit of it. But a company can say anything on their website. Everyone that has this service says they are the most secure. They can't all be right. So, If someone here has used the web conferencing appliance and can give me some insight, that would be great. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top