I laugh when they watch a tv show off their home pc.. Despite the fact mediacenter records at about 6gb/hr in hd, 3gb/hr in non-hd, which makes the whole concept of streaming that over wifi ridiculous Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Bino Gopal <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:57:34 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] $1000 / yr for 1TB of Cloud? Lol love watching the mini-flame war going back and forth. Couple points worth considering I think: I too cringe at the current marcom-speak about "the Cloud!"-the "To the Cloud" MS commercials being the worst/egregious examples of this, and I think this engenders a knee-jerk negative reaction to the whole term and concept from those of us who understand what's going on underneath. Despite that: I think there is a point to using the term cloud, and it does mean something more than what "internet" does, and to say cloud=internet is missing a key point (which was brought up, but not explicitly explicated in this discussion), which is that cloud=compute+storage virtualization over the internet/a network. Now this may seem obvious to folks here, but there is a real difference b/w saying you have server X here with your data vs. well, I can't really tell you where your data is-it's in bits and pieces all over a global infrastructure, but due to software algorithms we can always reconstruct it and there's a lot of redundancy and it's much harder to lose than when it was all in one place. Or where your compute is being done-it's being farmed out based on demand/load and you'll get as much as you pay for. This is a very big shift from the traditional model of hardware being king, and it's the rise of virtualization to the forefront which lets you separate the hardware from the use cases (storage/compute) which what the end-user really cares about! And as some of you may aware, Citrix NetScaler (where I work) is a pretty big virtualization company, since all we do is virtualize apps, and now we're moving on virutalizing lots more stuff (end-user PCs with client hypervisors and dekstops for coporate users and even network equipment work loads) and my division is doing a lot of cloud based stuff (we're doing cloud access for SAS apps, and cloud bridging b/w public and private clouds) and working with all the big dotcoms and cloud providers to do this (and even on Enterprise cloud initiatives) so there are some real use cases where the term makes sense and has a material difference worth considering. It's just that it literally is being conflated with "the internet" as many people have pointed out, b/c it's the hot new buzzword, and the marcom folks are misappropriating it and that's what's setting people off who know better... JM2C tho; take it or leave it! ;) BINO > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:33:24 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] $1000 / yr for 1TB of Cloud? > > The way it is used. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:07 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anthony, > > Fine. Agree. What set of technologies portend renaming Internet to Cloud? > > Best, > > Duncan > > > > > > On 03/31/2011 20:30, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: > >> The tech behind the "cloud". Saying it's a marketing term is besides the > >> point. And its not just a marketing term, either, as it refers to a set of > >> technologies that accomplishes a certain thing. It not just the internet, > >> either. The term was in use well before people started trying to push it > >> as they are now. Why the big deal over this simple term? It's not as if > >> any of us get to decide what terms get used. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> On Mar 31, 2011, at 8:20 PM, DSinc<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Anthony, > >>> What "tech?" CLOUD is a marketing name. The INTERNET is already a > >>> reality. OK. Don't like the term "Internet". Fine. Let's rename it > >>> "Cloud." > >>> Fine. > >>> Best, > >>> Duncan > >>> <snip>
