File under 'inspiration': a collection of Steve Jobs stories

Sure, I spent some time mulling over my own resignation letter over the past few weeks, but someone else had one around the same time that was much more impactful and far-reaching (and, honestly, was much better written). Timing is about the only thing that connects my workplace good-bye with the one that had the most impact on high tech in 2011: the resignation of Steve Jobs.

In the days following Steve Jobs’ departure as CEO of Apple, many folks in the industry who had felt his influence – as a manager, a visionary, or news maker – took pen to paper. Actually, many took fingers to backlit keyboard or glass touchscreen, thanks to Steve. And they wrote some interesting stories.

As these stories flew by on Twitter, I found that they were speaking not only about Steve Jobs, but about a whole lot more. I started grabbing links and stashing them to digest later. (Hey, I was busy.) I really didn’t have time and breathing room to process what they meant until now, a few weeks later.

Today’s Chronicle story about the new proposed Apple HQ in Cupertino (the big, donut-like “iCon” that the urban design critic called “refreshing” and “a sci-fi fantasy best viewed from a helicopter”) reminded me about all the stories I’d been collecting. I decided I should post a bunch that had relevance (and were even a bit poignant) here.

I figure that they are good for reference and useful for a little reflection on what kind of impact Steve Jobs had on cynical and/or fanboy journalists, employees, competitors, and the industry in general. They talk about an amazing figure in our industry in particular, but also get to important points about how to be a leader, how to build a company, how to be an entrepreneur, and the impact all those can have on individuals and even on Silicon Valley as a whole. I’m filing them under “inspiration.” Perfect timing for me, actually.

What folks learned spending time with Steve Jobs

Many stories were essentially quirky anecdotes from many of the people that had worked with or crossed paths with Jobs. And what they learned. For example: “CEOs should care about details. Even shades of yellow. On a Sunday.” Read Google’s Vic Gundotra’s story about his phone call from Steve for details. Steve’s interest in design and attention to detail resonated in Glenn Rossman’s story about his day pitching the media about NeXT and IBM with Steve Jobs as well.

Robert Scoble gives a good account of the impact of Steve and Apple had through nearly his entire life, ending with his decision to watch Steve’s iPad 2 announcement up close (and without his camera). “It’s one of the few times when I was forced to just soak in a performance, and not try to capture the event I was viewing,” Scoble writes. And in the age of Twitter and Facebook, that’s a rarity. “Jobs didn’t disappoint.”

What was Jobs like? I’ve never met him, though was in a presentation he gave with Larry Ellison to some of us then-Oracle employees way-back-when showing off the NeXT machine. I know some folks from the NeXT era who all have great stories.

Om Malik likens him to Howard Hughes. Saul Hansell at Tech Crunch called him the patron saint of perfectionists: “Steve Jobs was an impresario, in the tradition, more than anything, of a classic Hollywood studio boss (which he also was in his spare time).”

This impresario approach, of course, didn’t (and still doesn’t) make Apple a “pleasant company to deal with or work at,” noted Hansell. “Everyone at Apple worked with the anxiety that they must meet the impossible demands of Jobs or endure his anger.” Hansell compared Apple to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory: “no one went in and no one ever came out.”

The bigger picture: what Steve Jobs meant to innovation and Silicon Valley

Those negatives quickly melt away when talking about all Steve has accomplished, however.

Om Malik wrote a wistful piece that outlined some of the best things to be learned from watching Steve Jobs in action. “If you want to change something, you have to be patient and take the long view. …When you are right and the world doesn’t see it that way, you just have to be patient and wait for the world to change its mind.” Plus, Om highlighted one incredibly difficult piece of advice, especially for big companies: cannibalize yourself.

Chris O’Brien from the Merc noted 3 things that Steve Jobs meant to Silicon Valley as a whole: inspiration, innovation, and revolution. “It wasn’t just the way he bootstrapped an idea from nothing, but the anti-establishment flair with which he pursued his singular vision,” said O’Brien. He believes Jobs showed that even though it is the “harder, riskier road,” innovation can be the key for a company to reinvent itself.

O’Brien also noted that Jobs “saved his best for last” – the iPhone. It and the iPad are helping to end the era of the PC, a comment Paul Maritz underscored onstage in his keynote at VMworld last week.

Intersection of technology & liberal arts

Mark Sigal (@netgarden) talked about Jobs finding a way to be the point where technology and liberal arts intersect. “The realization that one man sits at the junction of cataclysmic disruptions in personal computing, music, mobile computing, movies and post-PC computing is breathtaking in its majesty. A legacy with no equal.”

Sigal notes that Jobs has been about “bringing humanity back to the center of the ring,” not speeds and feeds. He was willing to “think different” and make it look “ridiculously, deceptively simple.”

As someone who was late to the party on iPads (though my family and I have had our fair share of iPods and iPhones), I have to agree. My iPad is easy, elegant, and really useful. My expectations were exceeded so completely, it’s almost embarrassing. Our challenge now is to fit that simplicity into the way the rest of the world (and IT) works.

What do people see for the future of Steve and Apple?

So what does the future hold? As David Pogue’s New York Times article mentioned, most of the reactions to Job’s resignation “read like obituaries – for Steve Jobs, if not for Apple.” It’s one of the reasons I was always leery about investing in Apple stock (though I thankfully gave in). Once Steve left, for whatever reason, would there be any possible way to keep things going, while living up to the standards he had set?

“There’s one heck of a huge elephant in the room,” writes Pogue, “one unavoidable reason why it’s hard to imagine Apple without Mr. Jobs steering the ship: personality.” Pogue thinks Apple will do well for now, but will have a hard time knowing “where the puck will come to rest” once the Jobs-influenced “pipeline is no longer full, and when his difficult, brilliant, charismatic, future-shaping personality is no longer the face of Apple.”

However, Harvard Business School fellows James Allworth, Max Wessel, and Rob Wheeler point out that the “Steve-infused culture” that he is leaving behind is, in fact, the point. When Jobs returned to Apple for his 2nd stint, “he wasn’t just interested in building great products himself. He was interested in making sure everyone else within Apple was able to build great products, too – to be able to think like he did.”

These guys are so confident, they created a Twitter hashtag to follow the mantra they believe Apple will continue to leverage to success for a long time to come: #wwsd. As in: “What would Steve do?”

How would you like to remember Steve’s departure?

Before any of this had come to a head, Fritz Nelson of Information Week had been creating his own script for what a Steve Jobs departure would – or in his view, should – look like. It has a geeky element of fantasy to it, but is an interesting read about how Steve Jobs could have ended his tenure. Cool ideas, though the white turtle neck is a bit over the top.

The one thing I liked best, I think, is the Stanford commencement speech that Jobs did in 2005 (thanks to John Millea of CA Technologies and Jean Bozman of IDC for pointing it my direction again recently). As a Bay Area local, I remember being tempted to go. I wish I had, but the magic of YouTube at least ensures that I didn’t miss what he said. The graduates aren’t quite in sync with Jobs at the start, laughing at weird times, assuming that his speech is about, well, them. They eventually figure out that it’s not about them. At least, not only about them.

The speech has some great insights about how doing what you have a passion for is the most important thing. He talked about serendipity: how a calligraphy class he took (because he loved it) saved the world from ugly PC fonts. He talked about getting fired. He talked about being diagnosed with cancer.

If you can find a way to wrap all those things into one life and build great things from them, you’re liable to make a huge difference for yourself. And for a whole lot of other people, too.

So, I’ll hereby submit my comments to the mix of everything that’s already been said and end with something pretty simple.

Thanks, Steve.

'Forbes' rebuttal: don’t abolish cloud computing, just swap jargon for what customers really want

I’m guessing that Lee Gomes’ article on Forbes.com this week was intended to provoke a strong reaction. The title said it all: “Abolish cloud computing!” If so, he got me.

As I read the article, I couldn’t help but feel that he was missing the point. So, I crafted a quick response and dashed it off to him in an e-mail. To Lee’s credit, he was interested in the dialog, and thought his readers would be, too.

So, at Lee’s request, I polished up that e-mail a bit and two days after I saw a Forbes headline saying “Abolish cloud computing,” they ran my rebuttal to “save cloud computing.” Everyone loves a good debate, right?

Definitely read Lee’s original article and my response, but I’ll summarize it for you here since the main points were pretty straightforward. The industry has struggled mightily with the definition of cloud computing over the past 12 months (or longer). And grand pronouncements have inevitably followed. Public clouds are the future. Or not. Private clouds don’t exist. Or are really important for large companies.

This back and forth has led to a lot of confusion and some folks have even thrown in the towel. But I don’t think we should.

Lee’s analysis assumed that cloud computing was essentially the same concept as simply running something “over the Internet.” If that’s the case, then I agree with Lee – cloud computing is not worth all the chatter.

However, I don’t think that’s the case. As I mentioned in my rebuttal, “I think the aspects that make ‘cloud computing’ something IT shops should consider in the first place make it worth having its own term.”

Some of the special characteristics I point to are ones I’ve talked about here on this blog before (and supports the definitions from pundits, analysts, and even the NIST): elasticity from pooled resources, pay-as-you-go, and automation to enable on-demand self-service.

Big difference from just doing things "over the Internet" in my book.

So, take a look at the articles and comment at Forbes.com (or right here). I especially like the comment at Forbes emphasizing the need to be very clear what you’re talking about when parading around new terms like cloud computing.

And thanks to Lee and Forbes for the chance to make my point.

(Update 2/4: David Linthicum weighed in with his thoughts on Lee's article in his Infoworld cloud computing column today, asking "Is 'cloud computing' hurting cloud computing?" Also worth a read. In an industry arguing about definitions, his headline says it all.)

BusinessWeek's Hamm: Recession harms Silicon Valley's ability to contribute, but helps cloud computing

Believe it or not, there are still people who get paid to watch and report on the ins and outs of Silicon Valley. They see a lot of what's going on and probably think that those of us in the business are alternately drivers of a pretty interesting part of the global economy -- and in need of therapy. (Example? How about Larry Ellison's most recent anti-cloud computing rant and the flurry of commentary that followed.) But such dynamics come with the territory.

Steve Hamm of BusinessWeek is one of the guys who has been on the case for years. I met him through my work with Cassatt and have followed his work about the goings-ons in the Valley closely. With the economy still struggling to find its footing (certainly on the job front) but the buzz still at full volume about cloud computing, I thought some of his thoughts would be a useful contribution to the dialog here. He's been in the middle of some heated discussions on these topics. Plus, I find it's always interesting to interview the interviewers now and again.

If you don't know Hamm, he has been writing about the tech industry for 20 years, first in Silicon Valley and now in New York City. At BusinessWeek, he covers innovation, globalization, and leadership. He's also the author of two books, The Race for Perfect, about innovation in portable computing, and Bangalore Tiger, about the rise of the Indian tech industry.

Jay Fry, Data Center Dialog: You've been watching Silicon Valley and its cast of characters quite closely for a while. You've also had a chance to watch the economic downturn's impact on the Valley. What do you think will be of lasting importance in the way this recession is playing out compared with previous ones -- or even compared with early predictions about how this one would proceed?

Steve Hamm, BusinessWeek: Because it's so cheap to create Web 2.0 companies, and because most of the services they create are free to the consumer, this recession has had no discernible impact on creativity and use growth in social networking and social media. However, I believe that the funding squeeze, paucity of IPOs, and risk-aversion among venture capitalists has caused a slowdown in innovation in other areas that need attention -- green technologies, for instance. So while this recession hasn't had a devastating effect on the Valley and innovation, like the dot-com bust and '02 recession, it has harmed the Valley's ability to contribute as much as it could to solving the world's systemic problems.

DCD: Your BusinessWeek cover story back in December featured some big names (like Andy Grove) questioning whether Silicon Valley has the big, long-term thinking these days to deliver major, technological breakthroughs, rather than just incremental improvements. Do you think 2009 has provided evidence one way or the other?

Steve Hamm: I don't think much has changed. While IBM continues to invest aggressively in fundamental science-oriented breakthroughs, HP has narrowed its scope. Start-ups seeking money to do deep, long-term, transformative work continue to have difficulty getting funding.

DCD: Last month you blogged about the effect that consolidation is having on the IT industry and Silicon Valley entrepreneurship in general. In your interviews for the article (with senior Valley execs Bill Coleman and Craig Conway), you heard opposing views: that consolidation will be very tough for vendors -- or that the possibility of acquisition will still inspire start-ups to invent, despite a mostly dry IPO market. "I'm looking for some smart and brave CIOs to begin to experiment with start-up technologies again," you said, "--and get the innovation stream flowing again." Have you seen these brave CIOs yet? What do you think the increasing consolidation in hardware, software, and IT service providers means?

Steve Hamm: I found a few brave CIOs this year. They include the people who were aggressively embracing the combination of cloud computing and mobility, whom I wrote about in my story, "How Cloud Computing Will Change Business." They include: Donagh Herlihy, chief information officer of Avon Products, and Todd Pierce, vice-president for information technology, at Genentech North America. These guys aren't taking big risks on unproven technology. They see ready-for-primetime technology that's really useful for them and deploy it widely and quickly.

I think the continued consolidation of enterprise technology providers gives IT purchasers fewer choices, less negotiating power, and less innovation.

DCD: Have you seen any truly innovative business concepts or technologies appear on the scene despite (or because of) the downturn?

Steve Hamm: I think one of the potentially most powerful technologies that has advanced in spite of the downturn is using mobile phones for banking in emerging nations. There are a lot of pilot programs underway. Once this stuff gets widespread, it has the potential to transform the economies of poor nations.

DCD: What was the thing that caused you to think that cloud computing was worthy of BusinessWeek coverage?

Steve Hamm: It's the newest iteration of Internet computing, and will make it easier and cheaper to put the full power of computing in everybody's hands.

DCD: In June's special report about cloud computing, you mentioned that this "may be the largest growth opportunity since the Internet boom," but that it's going to take a while. Some have speculated that cloud computing might be the innovation that comes out of this downturn. From what you've learned covering the topic, what's your view on the evolution of cloud computing and what its impact might be? Has it lived up to its billing so far?

Steve Hamm: I think it has lived up to its billing so far, through there still is a long way to go. Adoption of SaaS by businesses has accelerated during the downturn, as companies look for ways to do more things with technology while avoiding capital spending as much as possible.

One of the most important things to get done by the industry is to assure that individuals and companies can easily shift from one cloud service provider to another without undue stress. No lock-in! Efforts are starting along these lines, but they could get bogged down by the desire of companies to gain profit advantages through using proprietary technologies.

DCD: How difficult is it to pick up a relatively technical topic and write something for the BusinessWeek audience? After that June special report on cloud computing, for example, I saw criticism from industry insiders that some of the examples you used were not actually examples of what cloud computing actually does. How do you approach complicated, nuanced, or -- like cloud computing -- ill-defined technical issues?

Steve Hamm: I don't write about the plumbing of technology, so it's not hard to make something accessible to our smart and aware BusinessWeek readers. The critiques of my story were silly. My critics didn't seem to be able to register the fact that the story was about the melding of cloud computing and mobility. Also, they were hung up on narrow technical definitions while I was writing about broad shifts in the computing landscape. My advice: Get a life.

DCD: What's the relationship you generally have with the technical press and industry analysts? How much do you rely on them to vet technologies or trends before they get your attention?

Steve Hamm: I don't read trade publications very often, though I respect the best of them. I do talk to industry analysts frequently and respect many of them. Important technology shifts usually come to my attention through meetings with the innovators themselves. They (actually, their PR people) know what I'm interested in and e-mail me asking for meetings.

DCD: When I was last at your offices, the outlook for BusinessWeek (and journalism's current business model) seemed pretty bleak to me. How are things looking for BusinessWeek at the moment? Do you think there's a solution to "reset" the business of journalism that can work financially? How do you think you and your peers will come through this all?

Steve Hamm: BusinessWeek is being sold by McGraw-Hill and its future is very uncertain. The business model for serious business journalism, especially in print, is under assault. The search for truth by professionals is very expensive, and isn't supported by current print or even online revenue trends. I think that eventually new business models will emerge that support serious journalism, but I don't see them yet. If you think of something that will save journalism, please send me a note.
…

Thanks to Steve for spending the time to do this interview. Many of the issues discussed here will obviously continue to have a big impact on businesses -- and the IT and data centers supporting them. One of the more interesting angles to think about is that decisions being made now, under the duress of a deep recession, could play out over a vastly different backdrop as economic conditions change. Cloud computing has the chance to help shrink the time it takes a business to respond as the economic climate shifts, but only if an organization's IT department has made significant progress toward adopting this new operational model. And, of course, cloud computing needs to do what it has promised for each individual customer.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that all of this will continue to give Steve and BusinessWeek plenty of things to cover for as long as they can navigate these same rough waters themselves.

You can find Steve Hamm's Globespotting blog here.

Why are end users skeptical about cloud computing? Maybe because vendors control the info flow

Sifting through the results of the Cassatt 2nd Annual Data Center Survey, I found something that seemed worth special comment, especially in light of all the cloud computing FUD stirred up by the McKinsey report released at the Uptime Institute event in New York last week.

The McKinsey report said that cloud computing, in so many words, isn't worth the money. I can understand delivering a contrarian message as a counterbalance to the extreme, positive cloud hype currently underway. Or as John Foley of InformationWeek called it, a "much-needed reality check." Fine. But, I (and a good number of other folks -- see the link list at the end of this post) think it was off base in a lot of ways.

But that wasn't the interesting part to me. Instead, I thought it was interesting how easy it was for a single report to hit the New York Times (and a few other places, obviously) and then ignite a "negativity storm" about the perils of cloud computing. Only a few days before, the industry was in a full-fledged love fest with the concept of clouds. (And, probably will be again: the vSphere 4 announcements from VMware this week are working hard to build the "love" for cloud computing -- especially private clouds -- back up.)

But back to my question: why is it so easy to launch a FUDfest around cloud computing?

Here's one possible answer: it's because the end users are not comfortable with the information they are getting about cloud computing (public/private, internal/external, hybrid -- all of it). Why? Because the biggest source of information about this new approach to data center operations and IT in general is (surprise, surprise) the big vendors who are trying to sell them this stuff.

What makes me say this? We asked end users about it. One of the questions we included in the Cassatt 2009 Data Center Survey was: "From what sources do you get data or guidance regarding cloud computing?" Respondents were allowed to select all answers that applied. The answers, in order of popularity were:

· System vendors (e.g. Dell, HP, IBM, Sun): 46% [who would have thought at the time that we should have included Oracle in this list?!]
· Analysts (e.g. Forrester, Gartner, IDC, 451 Group): 43%
· Industry events (summits, conferences, etc.): 42%
· Industry publications/websites/blogs: 39% (e.g. TechTarget, Computerworld, etc.)
· Software/IT management vendors (e.g. BMC, CA, Cassatt, VMware, others): 33%
· Colleagues or peers: 32%
· None of the above: 21%
· Independent bloggers: 11%
· Other industry organizations: 10%
· Other: 2%

So topping the list -- above industry analysts or even their peers -- were vendors. Data center folks who answered our survey said vendors (and system vendors specifically) provided them with their key cloud computing information.

(By the way, this survey question was inspired by one we asked in last year's survey. In 2008, we asked where people got data or guidance on data center energy efficiency. The findings last year: 49% said system vendors, 43% said power & cooling vendors. Same story, different topic. Mark Fontecchio at TechTarget did a good post-Earth Day write-up on last year's findings you can read for comparison.)

Back to 2009 and cloud computing, though. I am heartened that IT ops folks do seem to spend due diligence time with industry websites and resources, and even manage to attend some of the bevy of cloud computing events making the rounds. And obviously, our results come from asking questions of the Cassatt database, a self-selecting lot, and should be viewed in that light.

But, I think there's something here. You could say that the news media love opposing views, and the McKinsey report was tuned to be just that. However, I'd argue that the skepticism by end users (and those writing on their behalf) was already in place. IT has been burned before by promises of the "next big thing." Especially when there is even a slight inkling that this next big thing is being pushed down their throats by anyone whose incentives don't line up with theirs. (OK, that's pretty much anyone selling something, so that's a little extreme, I admit.) We probably shouldn't underestimate, however, the impact of knowing that some very large vendors may not be here tomorrow (e.g. Sun being gobbled by Oracle), thanks to both the maturity of the high-tech industry and the weak economy.

The result? If those vendors are how you get your "reliable" information about a completely new way to run your data center, you'd probably be wise to be a bit skittish. And branch out a bit.

So, what should IT do to "branch out" and gain a little confidence about cloud computing? Even though I'm on the vendor side of the table, there are a couple things I'd suggest for end users that I think would be beneficial for them (and, frankly, for vendors, too):

· Make sure when pulling together supposedly reliable source information that it actually is relevant to your situation -- and actually valid. Some of the McKinsey report talks about SMBs being the only place clouds can be viable. Huh? (Again, check out some of the links who help do the math on that below.)
· Before making blanket statements about what's possible or not, try things out. You may find the cloud approach your peer companies took is exactly wrong for you. Or a no-brainer that you should have already piloted. You won't know until you’ve tried it, at least in a small, controlled way.
· If you have tried things out, even if only as a test or pilot, share that with the industry. We're all learning from each other, given how fast things move.
· Do continue to get information from vendors, but ask really tough questions. We're happy when people do that to us at Cassatt, and in fact treat that as a great way to qualify someone as a real potential customer. If you're not asking the hard questions, you're not serious about cloud computing. (The corollary: if we -- or whomever you are asking -- can't answer 'em, ask someone else who can.)
· Encourage the industry journalists/analysts to go beyond what people say in their press releases and report on what's really going on out there, good and bad. Many have this approach built into their DNA and are trying to do exactly this, but even the best ones need end user help to succeed. Be a source for them. What goes round, comes round, after all.

If you're interested in what people have been saying about the McKinsey report, here's a sampler.

Some basics to kick it off:
NY Times
Forbes
Data Center Knowledge

General commentary, ranging from mildly supportive with caveats to denouncing the whole thing (and lots inbetween):
InformationWeek (John Foley)
Appirio
Cloudiquity
Carpathia Hosting
RightScale
Avastu
Rough Type
ZDNet (Andrew Nusca)
Many Niches
InformationWeek (Michael Hickins)
Elastic Vapor
Tech Crunch
IT World
James Hamilton, AWS
GigaOm
Booz Allen Hamilton
CloudPundit (Lydia Leong of Gartner)
Mosso (Lew Moorman)
CIO Magazine (Bernard Golden)
Cloud Avenue (Krishnan Subramanian)
GoGrid

Whew. And most of this was before the Oracle-Sun deal announcement and the VMware vSphere news hit. (Though I am continuing to add to this as I find new commentary.) You would probably be able to make a pretty strong argument that information overload also plays a big role in end user cloud computing skepticism. If you're spending all your time keeping track of how the industry is morphing day-to-day, you're going to have trouble keeping your data center going, too.

The Great Internal Cloud Debate: Where are we now?

In case you haven't been spending 24x7 keeping track of the industry chatter on the internal cloud and/or private cloud issue, I thought I'd point you to some recent relevant discussions. And maybe highlight what sounds something like a consensus that seems to be building about how this concept will affect (and even benefit) IT, shocking though that may be to you.

One of the most methodically thought-through and extensively discussed sets of definitions for clouds-that-aren't-really-what-everyone-meant-by-cloud-computing-in-the-first-place that I've seen recently was proposed by Chris Hoff (@Beaker on Twitter), which came complete with visual aids (thank you for that, Hoff, actually). Hoff's original point was to try to add some clarity to the "vagaries of cloudcabulary" as he described it -- and to show why using the HIPPIE (Hybrid, Public, Private, Internal, and External) terms for clouds interchangeably (as, ahem, I've kinda been doing myself around here) really doesn't help matters.

In cloud computing, there are lots of hairs to split on where the physical (er, or virtual) compute resource is located, who owns it, who manages it, who can access it -- and how. And, it turns out that after much debate, the private cloud term is the one that seems to be the squishiest. Hoff ended up with something that a lot of people liked (read his post, updates, and the comments to get the full picture), but I'm betting that the precision with which his definitions have been sculpted will be lost on many. He acknowledges that, too, in saying "I don't expect people to stop using [the] dumbed down definitions" and points specifically to comparing "private" clouds to "internal" ones as a prime offender.

So when is an internal cloud private? Or vice versa?

Since this internal v. private cloud distinction isn't one that we've really been making on this blog up to this point, I think it's worth explaining what we mean by each in light of the issues Hoff raised.

When we talk "internal clouds" here, we are mainly talking about using what you already have in your data center to create a dynamic resource pool, managed through policy-based automation software like what Cassatt provides. That means we are, for the most part, ignoring the status of a lot of the other key issues that Hoff discusses in our initial conversations. It's not that management and access (to name a few) aren't important, but they are topics that we add to the discussion along the way with customers. They are just not necessarily the first words out of our mouths.

Why?

Because we're trying to highlight what we think is the most important value to Cassatt customers: being able to leverage the concept of cloud computing by using what you already own inside your data center. In beginning this discussion about improving the efficiency of the data center resources an organization already has, the "internal cloud" moniker seems a fair, if somewhat imprecise, starting point. But you have to start somewhere.

Of course, after heading down that path a bit with a customer, the "private cloud" term may be the one that actually makes the most sense to describe what they are doing or working toward. It may be that the customer's ideal set-up includes both internal and external resources (I'm talking location here), and may need to be used by people and resources inside/outside the company, but still need to be trusted and integrated sufficiently to be considered part of that company's internal compute infrastructure. Hybrid cloud situations could definitely fall into this category, as they begin to move from the realm of PowerPoint to that of reality. And in all those cases, we should absolutely use the private cloud term.

So, we'll endeavor to be more precise in what we mean. Thanks for the pointers in the right direction, Hoff.

And, by the way, private cloud computing is suddenly everywhere

Having just said that there is a distinction between how someone uses private and internal clouds as a label, I am forced to note that the IT press and analyst communities seem to have latched onto the "private cloud" term much more aggressively, regardless of any distinctions. Or maybe those publishing recently have been following the debate (some certainly have on Twitter). I'll let you decide. In any case, here are a couple write-ups on private (and internal) clouds worth noting of late:

· InformationWeek’s Charlie Babcock covered “Why ‘Private Cloud’ Computing Is Real – And Worth Considering” pretty thoroughly. He argues that even though no single piece of an internal cloud architecture may look like a breakthrough, "private clouds represent a convergence of trends holding great promise for enterprise computing," enabling users to tap computing power without a lot of know-how. If your IT guys can master virtualization, he says, you'll master the private cloud (despite virtualization not being a requirement, it seems to be a good measuring stick). And, notes Charlie, "internal clouds aren't just a more efficient way of maintaining old data center practices." Instead, you have to rethink how you do things. Craig Vosburgh did a whole Data Center Dialog post about that topic if you're interested.

· Forrester's James Staten explained his view on how to "Deliver Cloud Benefits Inside Your Walls." While James does use both the internal and private cloud nomenclature, his first report in their "private cloud" series published April 13, 2009, puts Forrester's stake in the ground on the topic. While their definition is a little too virtualization- and developer-based for my tastes, I can't disagree with James that "the end result looks a lot like organic IT" -- the term Forrester has been using for a dynamic, utility-style data center since 2002.

· "Private Cloud Computing Is Real -- Get Over It," said Gartner's Tom Bittman in one in a series of blog posts on the topic. Tom has been pretty clear and pragmatic in his posts on this topic. Whether the name is precisely accurate is not the important point, he says. Instead, it's the idea. And he's in the middle of writing a bunch of research that, if his blog posts are any indication, will put Gartner's full weight behind the concept.

· Also from InformationWeek: what GE is doing with their private cloud, and what private cloud tools are hitting the market. (Yep, Cassatt got a quick mention.)

· 451 Group/Tier 1 Research explained that “The Sky’s the Limit: How Cloud Computing Is Changing the Rules” in their recent webcast. William Fellows recounted BT, Betfair, and Bechtel examples of how real customers are using private (and even hybrid) clouds in this webcast, created from a new report of theirs. Customer examples like this (and the ones in the InformationWeek articles) are great to see.

So where are we now?

To borrow a phrase, we've come a long way, baby. Frankly, even from when Cassatt started actively using the "internal cloud" term aggressively in customer-facing conversations in the middle of 2008 or when I first blogged on the topic here ("Are internal clouds bogus?"), there's been a notable change in both quality and quantity of discussions.

On the quality side of things: the conversation is no longer about whether this concept makes sense, but instead about who is doing it and the distinctions necessary for other companies to really get there. (Our own example: our recent webcast was explicitly about the steps toward creating an internal cloud.) This qualitative step forward is a good sign that the hype is starting to get outpaced by a little bit of real-world execution.

As for quantity, let's just say that my Google alerts for "private clouds" and "internal clouds" are going crazy. For fun (more or less), I set up "dueling Google alerts" on these two specific phrases a few months back. Some days they are more weighted toward one term, some days toward the other ("private clouds" won today, 8 mentions to 6). But the reality is that if I didn't have Google limiting their appearance in my inbox to only once a day, I wouldn't be able to keep my head above the, well, clouds.

How one editor cuts through the cloud computing hype

Earlier in the week, I posted the first part of an interview I did with Derrick Harris, editor of the late On-Demand Enterprise site. He offered a few thoughts of his own about the state of cloud computing before heading off to his new gig with GigaOM.

Highlights from Derrick's interview so far: he thinks the table is set in 2009 for some major strides in cloud computing, despite the economic downturn. Why? Cloud computing's value prop is, plain and simple, impressive. Not that it won't be rough out there for customers and vendors this year. Derrick wasn't willing to go too far with predictions for that very reason. I can't say I blame him. Especially with those two competing forces currently dominating the landscape on cloud computing: the unflappable vendor hype machine counterbalanced by the bleak reality of a super-cautious, recession-inspired IT spending environment.

In the concluding part of the interview, I asked Derrick to talk a bit about how as a journalist he weeds through everything people tell him, especially with a topic as popular as cloud computing, to help IT management readers find the really useful nuggets.

Jay Fry, Data Center Dialog: There's obviously some criticism out there that all the cloud stuff is way, way overhyped. Do you feel it is? How do you avoid falling into that trap as a journalist?

Derrick Harris: Over-scrutinized maybe, but definitely not overhyped. As I might have made clear, I'm a firm believer in the cloud. The problem as I see it is that it's still so early, but some commentators seem to expect cloud solutions to be as mature and robust as their legacy counterparts. Pardon the cliche, but we need to give the seeds some time to grow.

I also see an issue with too much coverage, especially as it relates to the outer edges of what is considered cloud computing. I wrote several blogs over the past few months bemoaning how everything is labeled as cloud computing, even if it is little more than SaaS or consumer Web services (e.g., iPhone apps). This leads to unnecessary terminology saturation, as I don't think too many consumers consider what they're doing to be cloud computing. I try to avoid this trap by constantly reminding myself that my focus is on commercial use (for the most part), as well as by drawing distinct lines between cloud computing and cloud services.

DCD: What part of being a journalist following this space is the most interesting?

Derrick Harris: I have two favorite parts. One is watching Amazon continue to expand the scope of its cloud operations into areas unfathomed when EC2 was first announced, and the other is speaking with start-ups about why their solutions are the next big thing. Across the board, everyone is just so excited, which makes it fun to cover.

DCD: What part do you dread?

Derrick Harris: Journalistically, I dread having to decide where to draw the line between what is cloud and what is not. Every publication has its editorial scope, and as more vendors (and, increasingly, managed hosting providers) try to leverage cloud computing's good will, it becomes difficult to decide what's cloud and what's something else -- and then figure out where, if anywhere, that something else belongs within a given site.

DCD: What happened with On-Demand Enterprise? Was the bad economy the publication's death knell, or is it a commentary about the level of interest in this topic (which would seem odd, given that all of the other pubs are currently covering the same topics very aggressively)?

Derrick Harris: A lack of advertising revenue is a surefire killer of any publication, so the economy definitely bears some of the blame. Of course, that explanation ignores other factors that no doubt played into the decision to suspend publication, among them the increased competition to which you alluded. Both the company and I knew it was somewhat risky to change from the established GRIDtoday to the, essentially, new On-Demand Enterprise, but we also knew it was the right decision. Unfortunately, a confluence of factors just overpowered our best intentions.

DCD: In our Cassatt 2008 data center survey, respondents said they got most of their information about the data center energy efficiency topic from vendors rather than "independent" industry experts. How do you think IT folks are getting their information these days? How is this changing and how rapidly? What should/can industry publications (or even vendors, since, apparently people do listen to them for some things) do to help them?

Derrick Harris: I hope soon that IT folks all will be getting their information from GigaOM (kidding, but not really). Seriously, though, I think for many topics, including energy efficiency, vendors are an abundant source of information (albeit biased information) because news publications are too busy debating whether a particular paradigm can work. I understand that a key role of the press is to question authority (in this case, IT vendors), but IT users are results-oriented people, and if information about how they can best leverage cloud computing is more useful to them than a commentary on why cloud computing will never work, they will seek out what they need regardless the source.

I see tried and true areas like storage and networking covered very well by the IT press, and I think this is rapidly becoming the case with technologies like virtualization or energy efficiency, and whole paradigms like cloud computing. Outside forces are making certain things even more important to readers, and as publications become more comfortable with these technologies, they can provide the kinds of information that readers crave. From a publication's point of view, it needs to make sure a trend is for real before it starts publishing best practices and acquiring granular knowledge.

...

Thanks to Derrick for the interview. I suppose I should update our blogroll to remove Derrick's old On-Demand Enterprise links, but I think I'll wait until he kicks off his new role at GigaOM. Oh, and Derrick, I hope they spring for a new photo for you.

One final comment: following up on one of the topics Derrick and I discussed, Cassatt is putting the finishing touches on a new data center survey to see how attitudes and plans about data center operations, cloud computing, and energy efficiency have changed since last year. We'll share that as soon as we have all the data in. Results from the Cassatt 2008 survey are summarized here (no registration required), or available in more detail in this white paper (quick registration required). Change has been the watchword in politics and the economy over the past 12 months; will data center operations be any different?

Derrick Harris interview: Cloud computing 'blows away' grid's value prop

For those who watch the cloud space, you probably noticed that the bad economy took down one of the more rational voices in the conversation a few weeks back. On Dec. 19, On-Demand Enterprise (once known as GRIDtoday) froze its content and sent its editorial staff packing. Their depressing blurb saying as much is atop all of their site’s pages now.

Derrick Harris, the editor of that publication, was one of the casualties. Derrick covered the move to on-demand computing in the virtual pages of that pub, helping clear away some of the fog for readers. He had been providing a sort of measuring stick for the expansion and shifts in the cloud discussion, and along the way was never afraid to call vendors on what they were doing. Needless to say, it was a bummer for the community to have that pub collapse.

The good news: I have it on good authority that you'll be hearing from Derrick again soon. In fact, he's due to resurface with the good folks over at GigaOM shortly. In the meantime, I thought I'd get Derrick's thoughts on the cloud computing space that he has covered pretty thoroughly for so long. (How's that for turning the tables a bit on one of our journalist friends?)

To give you an idea of his healthy skepticism, here's a bit from one of his posts last summer: "Personally, I have had my fill of cloud computing for a while. Depending on who you ask, it's either great or it's terrible, it's either the biggest IT innovation since the PC or it's an elaborate ruse designed to both take your money and leave you and your data as vulnerable as a newborn. As I've stated on numerous occasions, the truth -- presently and in the real world -- resides somewhere in the middle."

I also like this snippet (from the same post), which, whether he meant it that way or not, is a great summary of the State of the Cloud, which seems to still be holding true at the moment: "Long story short: I'm tired of writing about cloud computing every week (I really am), but I cannot stand to see the propagation of misconceptions without at least voicing a rational opinion in the name of clarification. Enterprise-wise, cloud computing is not ready for primetime just yet, but there are plenty of reasons that make it an attractive option, with production-ready in-house versions being a near-term reality. In the meantime, big companies will use it for testing purposes, small companies might use it for real, and the cloud providers will continue to hone their offerings." Three cheers for rational discourse.

With that, here's the first part of my interview with Derrick:

Jay Fry, Data Center Dialog: From your time as managing editor at GRIDtoday and then as it became On-Demand Enterprise, you've had a chance to watch (and bring attention to) the rise of cloud computing. What convinced you that this "cloud" stuff was going to be something worth covering and something impactful?

Derrick Harris: I think what most convinced me that cloud computing is worth covering is how it parallels -- and then blows away -- the value propositions touted by grid vendors a few years ago. When I first started at GRIDtoday, there was much talk about capacity on demand, utility-style access, etc., as they related to grid computing, but the reality was that these capabilities only benefited certain application types, and then only grid-enabled applications. As cloud computing (both internal and external) started to take shape, this capacity-on-demand value prop was expanded to reach many more applications, flexibility was increased, and, generally, far less work and infrastructural change was required to take advantage of these benefits.

DCD: How important do you think cloud computing is going to be? What sort of impact do you think it will have on enterprises?

Derrick Harris: I think it's going to be very important, eventually becoming all but ubiquitous -- there are just too many cost savings and competitive advantages to be had by moving certain operations to the cloud. (That said, I'm not about to venture a guess as to when this ubiquity will be reality.) As far impact goes, I think Werner Vogels says it best when he talks about eliminating "undifferentiated heavy lifting" and focusing human and financial resources on a company's strengths. That could mean unprecedented levels of productivity.

DCD: What are some of the most interesting/compelling components of what's going on in the cloud space right now? What’s headed in the right direction?

Derrick Harris: I think one of the dead-on trends right now (and not just because I'm talking to someone from Cassatt) is the incorporation of policy-based power management into internal cloud offerings. This really melds the on-demand, hands-free promise of cloud computing with the harsh realities that companies need to save money wherever they can and, in some areas, additional power is tough to come by. It also allows internal vendors to compete with external providers on the cost-savings and green fronts. The increased availability of external clouds supporting Windows would seem to be a big deal, as well.

DCD: What's headed toward a dead-end?

Derrick Harris: I think it's too early to call anything a dead end just yet, as most offerings are in their early stages, but I do think large vendors need to be wary of building their external cloud platforms too cumbersome and/or too proprietary. It is the simplicity and openness of cloud computing that are so compelling.

DCD: What's the most surprising trend, innovation, or happening that you’ve seen recently?

Derrick Harris: I don't know that it's surprising, but I am very intrigued by the notion of using humans as cloud resources. Amazon Web Services' Mechanical Turk probably is the most prominent example of this, but I've also seen it in the QA testing area with uTest. Cloud computing is all about evolving how we compute, so I always am interested when I see unique ways of defining "computing."

DCD: Any predictions you'd care to make for 2009 or cloud computing or enterprise IT in general?

Derrick Harris: Not really, other than that I think the table has been set for 2009 to be a big year for cloud players – particularly when it comes to attracting enterprise users. Most everyone has put their stake in the ground, some have really solidified their offerings, and there is plenty of user interest.

DCD: What effect do you think this lovely economy will have on the adoption of cloud computing? I've heard comments both ways.

Derrick Harris: Well, vendors and some analysts have said cloud computing will be a savior of IT budgets in this nightmarish economy. Logically, this forecast makes a lot of sense, and companies willing to give cloud a try could reap substantial rewards. However, I think the reality might be that many organizations will see the economy as another reason to naysay cloud computing, feeling that failure could be fatal so it's better to just maintain the status quo. I don't mean to skirt around the question, but I just think it's too early to tell.

If there is a surefire bright spot, it is start-ups. Innovation certainly hasn't died, and with credit and funding becoming scarce, cloud computing will continue to be a great way for start-ups (particularly Web-based start-ups) to keep their IT costs manageable so they can grow the end product. Success stories already are piling up.
...

Next time: More from Derrick on the perils of being a high-tech journalist in this economy.