Reading this page on The Register Microsoft are going to come in at $0.12 for an hours computing.
Doing the maths, assuming two hours computing on an evening and four hours on a weekend day, that's 4,680 hours over the average five year life of a home PC. This costs $561.60 when a new, reasonably powerful computer can be obtained for that price complete with monitor and all the rest.
Before you think that this is not a bad comparison, think of these points...
- You're going to need a computer to access the cloud anyway so the best you can hope for is to compare the price of, (basic computer+cloud service) <= (a quality PC equal to the processing power provided by the cloud) and on that equasion, cloud computing doesn't add up.
- Using cloud computing means you're using bandwidth and that is going to cost more as well.
- On top of the processor power usage, you get charged per gig of storage.
- It is possible that there could be a charge for using various applications on top of that as well. If they start charging for application use by the hour whether you use five minutes could be a serious bone of contention.
- What happens when you want to run your own application in that cloud; eh?!
For the average home user, cloud computing just isn't worth it. Buy yourself a better PC and invest in a data backup strategy.
Easier to understand version...
The cloud will offer a lot of processing bang for your buck. The cloud processors will be replaced more often than the average household PC so will be more up to date. That is a given.
As your PC gets older, newer software won't work on it as quickly.
For most people, however, this doesn't matter as for the majority a well specified PC will last five years.
To weigh up the service you're going to receive from the cloud, you're going to have to do some figuring. You're going to get charged by the hour for the processing you use. You're going to get charged for your file storage. You're going to get charged on your broadband bill because you're communicating with the cloud. On top of that you need a reasonable PC to talk with the cloud in the first place and, purely on the basis that you're going to have to replace THAT PC every five years anyway ... where the hell is the benefit?
The benefit is whether the cost of the basic PC plus the cost of the cloud comes together to cost you less than getting a more powerful PC in the first place.
Given that, as an engineer, I can usually knock a slightly less than cutting edge PC together for around £300-£400 which will happily last five years, couple that with a free operating system, Linux, and sling on top of that a free Office application, Open Office ... perhaps another £100 on a file backup solution ... cloud computing just can't compete with that.
Who would benefit from cloud computing?
Well, this is, indeed, a good question.
Cloud computing is good for people on the go; no need to hulk around a laptop, all you need is an Internet cafe. You are also not hulking data around which could get you in to trouble with authorities.
This comes unstuck with people who handle large amounts of data, such as photographers, who need to dump cards with gigabytes of data on. It would just choke. There can also be access issues in various countries; just as various countries have blocked access to various web sites during unrest so they could block access to the cloud. Also, if you ARE carrying around data which could get you in to trouble with authorities, do you really want it stored on another companies systems? Nah, you'd be better off with a Citrix connection back to the base office.
Cloud computing is good for people who don't use the computer a lot.
Well, given that you need a basic computer to access the cloud, if you're using it infrequently, then that means that the basic computer will probably fulfill your needs in the first place.
Cloud computing is good for people who don't use applications that often.
This is a good point; why spent a small fortune on a licence of Office when you can pay by the minute. To be honest, however, applications like Photoshop aren't practical in the cloud because of the amount of data going back and forth and chewing in to your usage time and bandwitdh ... you might as well use paint. When it comes to office suites, Open Office is free and that is a price that can't be beaten. So ... if the cloud offered premium products that were always up to date, then I can understand it ... but paying by the hour to use Word doesn't make sense and you can bet that we won't be seeing AutoCad, Photoshop or anything of that kind of pedigree in the cloud ... and those that might be, will probably be impractical to use.
OK - I'll come clean ... I can't think of any good reason to use cloud computing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment