Wired Planet: Cloud Computing Interoperability

In some of my earlier Blog entries, I have mentioned the need for Cloud Interoperability, in order to prevent cloud vendor lockin. I am glad to see some industry movement in that direction. Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF) was formed recently and is a group of industry stakeholders that are active in cloud computing. Its objective is to enable a global cloud computing ecosystem whereby organizations are able to seamlessly work together for the purposes for wider industry adoption of cloud computing technology and related services. A key focus will be placed on the creation of a common agreed upon framework / ontology that enables the ability of two or more cloud platforms to exchange information in an unified manor.

Encourage everybody to contribute and participate as appropriate.

<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="geekyjewel";</script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script>
Comments:

You mention "I have mentioned the need for Cloud Interoperability, in order to provide cloud vendor lockin". Isn't it the other way around? If the cloud vendors are \*not\* interoperable wouldn't it be difficult for a customer to move easily to another vendor? In fact, Amazon's proprietory SimpleDB seems like a step in that direction? Also, is vendor lockin a desirable goal for the end user? Or are you thinking from the point of view of the cloud vendor?

Posted by Foo on December 14, 2008 at 04:21 AM PST #

Cloud interop on the surface would seem to be for the benefit of cloud consumers. However, if you consider that the cloud consumer may be scared off from one cloud or another for fear of lockin, it is in everyone's interest to enable interop between clouds, and standards to enable migration between clouds.

Obviously the standardisation of these interfaces, feature sets, etc between cloud providers will lead to commoditisation of the services, meaning cloud providers will need to become more innovative and offer more value added services (then there will be a call to standardise the additional services, and the cycle repeats).

Cheers,
Kris

Posted by Kris on December 17, 2008 at 02:50 PM PST #

Foo - not "provide Vendor Lockiin", rather "prevent Vendor Lockin" Provide was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out.
Makes sense now?

Appreciate your comments.
Thanks,
Alka

Posted by Alka Gupta on December 24, 2008 at 06:57 AM PST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed
About

alkagupta

Search

Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today