Don't know about you, but I've been inundated by emails, banner ads, sponsored links, LinkedIn group updates, tweets, and Facebook ads all announcing that some product is now available in a SaaS format. Yes, even by word-of-mouth. It occurred to me that many of these companies may not even know what the as-a-service moniker even means.
I recently sat in on a cloud-101 type presentation by Dan Koffler and, in his presentation, he discussed the interrelationship between IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS. To sum it up, IaaS supports both PaaS and SaaS implementations, and PaaS supports SaaS implementations. This brings up an interesting point: does SaaS conform to the NIST standard definition of cloud computing? Here's an excerpt of the NIST definition:
Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure 2.
The footnote at the end of that sentence reads:
2 A cloud infrastructure is the collection of hardware and software that enables the five essential characteristics of cloud computing.
And, as we all know, one of the essential characteristics is "Rapid elasticity". The fact that the upper service model(s) are served by the lower one(s) indicates that any true SaaS implementation would necessarily be elastic. This is the true test of whether a product is SaaS or an ASP (application service provider) implementation where the software is simply hosted on a server.
So, the next time a vendor pitches you on a SaaS product, ask them this question: "Does the product's resources (i.e., compute power, RAM, storage) scale automatically as my organization reaches predetermined usage thresholds (e.g., % utilization of resources or number of users)? Or do I have to call you to increase these resources?" If the answer is "Yes," and "No," in that order, it's a true SaaS implementation. If the answer is "No," and "Yes," it's ASP and you should definitely ask what the SLA is on the vendor completing the request.
Whatever the answer, I assure you that the answer to this question will be telling. Whether the sales rep knows the answer or not will interesting in and of itself.
And the winner is...
OK, we're not there yet. But, it's becoming obvious that the cloud computing market is heating up: there's been some downward pressure on IaaS pricing because of the number of competitors and, more importantly, because of the competition between Amazon and Google. Of course, this is to be expected because Google is trying to steal market share and AWS is trying to protect its share. Can we expect the same in the SaaS market? Probably, given that there has been a proliferation of SaaS companies (cloudwashing aside, see my previous post) in the last couple of years,. But then, there doesn't seem to be an enormous amount of overlap in the types services offered (yet?) because of the variety of solutions that are available for conversion to SaaS so we may not see the same price pressure as in the IaaS market.
That said, I don't think that the winner will be decided by its implementation of IaaS: the winner will be decided by PaaS. The reason for this is that every successful business model has had a strong developer community. Consider that the same thing happened with browsers and operating systems, and is currently happening with smartphones: smartphone leaders have stronger developer communities while weaker/less popular smartphones have fewer; such is the difference between iPhone and Blackberry. Granted, the gap between iOS devices and BB devices has other reasons as well, the point is that if BB had a stronger developer community than the iPhone, it would have won out earlier and not have to jump through hoops like it's doing right now.
Mobile providers should really take the hint here. Telcos are fighting for mobile market share but haven't really clued in that what attracts customers is not the phones themselves because every carrier has roughly the same phones for sale. What's really attracting them is the cool factor of what they can do with those phones. If the carriers really wanted to attract customers, they'd open up development platforms/PaaS environments for developers to create apps for free and then, when the app goes live, charge the developers to host their apps or collect ad revenue in exchange for free hosting. Like AT&T has done. Instead, most telcos and mobile carriers, are ignoring the PaaS possibility and looking to commoditized services with slowly eroding margins, like cabled connectivity, or to be me-toos in an almost saturated IaaS market to help grow their business.
There is no doubt that AWS is leading the way with $3.8B revenues projected for 2013. This definitely defines a leader in the market and AWS is certainly running away with the IaaS market. But Amazon did not stop at IaaS. It created a constellation of products built around EC2 to facilitate developer adoption. And that is why AWS is way ahead in the market.
It remains to be seen whether competitors in the PaaS market can steal away market share from AWS:
There are many more questions that we can list here, and certainly more than there are answers. Give it a year or two. Then we'll start to see some clear(er) patterns in the PaaS market.
I recently read a blog post by Reuven Cohen regarding the environmental impact of cloud computing. As an answer to his question regarding cloud's impact on the environment, we can safely say that, all else being equal, making use of cloud computing in an existing data center has a smaller environmental impact (i.e., CO2 emissions) than building a brand new data center in which to house your server and applications (whether it would be a private cloud or not). However, my statement requires some explanation: when I say 'cloud' I mean making use of resources in the cloud (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, storage).
Greenpeace, however, does not distinguish between 'cloud computing' and everything on the Internet in its report entitled, "Make IT Green: Cloud Computing and its Contribution to Climate Change". In their defence, they do identify growing (indirect) use of cloud resources by consumers of social media applications (Facebook), storage (Flikr), SaaS (Google Apps), etc. However the analysis includes all network infrastructure required to operate the Internet (!) as well as the specific cloud infrastructure used to provide these services.
On the other hand, the point that Greenpeace is trying to make is that the growth of usage of cloud based services will require the buildout of additional capacity in square footage, infrastructure, and power consumption. The building of the facilities and infrastructure is a sunk carbon cost (which might be subject to energetic efficiencies in and of itself) but the generation of power required by such a facility is variable and forecast to increase over the foreseeable future.
Adapted from, "Make IT Green: Cloud Comuting and its Contribution to Climate Change", Greenpeace International, March, 2010.
Such power generation is largely by coal fired and nuclear plants. Therein lies the problem. Interestingly, while CO2 emissions associated to power consumption increases across the board for the various regions between 2007 and 2020, their relative percentage decreases for all except one, China, whose emissions by far exceed those of the other regions largely due to its reliance on coal for power generation.
The bottom line in Greenpeace's report is that our use of cloud based services will inevitably increase over the coming years and that the carbon footprint of the organizations that provide us these services will inevitably get bigger. By making use of these services, we become polluters by proxy. It behooves us to apply pressure to those organizations that provide us these services, and to lobby our local, state/provincial, and federal governments to take notice of this issue; they are the ones who can force real change by enacting legislation.
The case has been made that cloud based services can deliver economic benefits to organizations, but those benefits, and the overall economic growth that can result, should be leveraged to find a more sustainable way of delivering these services.
The nomenclature for cloud computing, or the model for services consumed on a utility basis, has drawn much criticism and caused much confusion.
For those of you who are not aware, cloud computing draws its name from the fact that IT resources are "in the cloud", meaning that they are somewhere on the Internet, off your network. (A stylized cloud is often used to represent the Internet in architecture diagrams.) The most common term for cloud computing is the "as-a-Service" suffix: infrastructure (IaaS), platform (PaaS), software (SaaS), and storage (such as Amazon's S3). Clearly, IaaS and PaaS are derived directly from the hardware and development platforms and provide users with instances of the underlying resources on demand while storage is the use of storage media as a resource. SaaS, however, poses a problem: is software "cloud computing"? SaaS splits the community into two distinct camps: yes, SaaS is cloud computing because it is available in the cloud; no, SaaS is not cloud computing because you are subscribing to software on a monthly basis (unlike the utility model for IaaS and PaaS).
The NIST defines cloud computing as follows:
"Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models."
This definition leaves a bit of room for interpretation. Because of this, I propose alternate terms: "Cloud Based Services", "Services in the Cloud", or "Cloud Services". Each of these terms indicate that the services are consumed (be they IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, or storage) are located or based in the cloud and do not confuse the issue of SaaS being a compute resource per se.
While the terms "Cloud Based Services", "Services in the Cloud", and "Cloud Services" are not revolutionary, they clarify the concept and are inclusive of the various forms of cloud computing.
