^^^ This. And it's another way Apple can justify the cut it takes for hosting on the App Store as that playing field gets leveled by the courts and governments.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iCloud vs. AWS: Apple Has Considered Competing With Amazon in Cloud
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, exactly. Plus you need 24/7/365 technical support, technical account managers, client support architects, etc. etc.
No cloud service is good for storing files in a safe and secure fashion. Remember, there is no such thing as "the cloud", just someone else's computer. You want safe and secure (and cheaper in the long run), build your own NAS with internet access. That's the only way you can know that no one else has access to your files (assuming you set up security properly).
If so, that's encouraging. In my tests over the years Siri is as good as or better than Alexa.
AWS is a very "unlike Apple" service though. It's incredibly deep and complex. I don't think they'd do anything remotely similar.
They might perhaps do something more like Vercel. I mean ultimately server-less edge computing is more where things are going that monolith server options so it would make more sense, but they'd have to offer the complexity these services offer but the way Apple would do it - along the lines of Xcode and dev tools I guess.
They might perhaps do something more like Vercel. I mean ultimately server-less edge computing is more where things are going that monolith server options so it would make more sense, but they'd have to offer the complexity these services offer but the way Apple would do it - along the lines of Xcode and dev tools I guess.
You know, there's now an iCloud option to Keep Downloaded so the files remain on your device. It works on a directory or on individual files.
And Siri is not listening to your conversations, unlike Alexa who's always doing it, and sometimes can't resist to intervene with a comment.
Last edited:
This would be beneficial for really small businesses and individual developers, larger businesses it is still way more economical to maintain their own servers.
The cost is on par with other storage providers? 🤣 There are much cheaper options available.
Apple's enterprise cloud services would definitely be the iPhoto to AWS's Photoshop.
And there's the rub. Most people aren't IT professionals and have no clue how to properly secure a NAS or even implement a proper backup and recovery strategy. If you know what you're doing (and more importantly - if you have the time and inclination to do it properly), then that is a great solution, but that isn't going to be the case for most people.
the idea of Apple competing with AWS feels purely driven by the search for ever more revenue, not about naturally extending into an area that fits Apple's core mission and technological and organizational competencies
Which is the problem with stories like this on MacRumors: Many readers here have absolutely no idea the complexity and breadth of services something like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud offer and the enormity of the support structures behind them.
There's lots of ways Apple could provide value in the cloud space, and I would argue they already do—direct to consumers. Something like Time Machine in the cloud would be an interesting addition, among other options. But what Apple would be uniquely terrible at is as an infrastructure provider. The thought boggles the mind that anyone would think something like that would be a good idea.
Consider that Apple turns to AWS and Google Cloud to host iCloud both for storage and compute for billions of Apple users, on top of their millions of other clients, gives you a sense of scale here. Apple has no seat at this table.
If you won't offer EPYC/Instinct instances you're not serious as any developer services competitor provider, never mind AWS.
If Apple became a credible competitor to AWS, they'd probably make a ton of money... and get a lot of people who are tired of AWS to switch. 👀
Yep, I get the feeling that they’re going to keep pushing into areas they don’t really belong in just because those are the places they see big revenue potential.
Apple is not limited by the things you mention. Apple either already has, or can acquire, the expertise needed to build a first-class service. They have the cash to invest; the only real question is whether a viable business case exists. If it does, their strategy is unlikely to involve direct head-to-head competition with existing cloud providers. They would likely pursue a differentiated offering built around the advantages of the M-series architecture. Lower energy consumption could give them a head start — perhaps saving as much as 80% on power costs (i.e., as much as $50 million/year) compared to x86-based data centers. But, lower costs isn’t a business case. They would still need to identify a profitable and defensible niche. I don’t see one based on anything publicly known about Apple.
I'm all for it, especially as M-series chips get better at ML, it'd be great to have an affordable ML / AI stack built around Apple hardware instead of paying to use someone else's Nvidia.
For Apple only apps, CloudKit is sick as it is and tightly integrated w/their SDK.
I hope they'd start small, maybe building on CloudKit for Apple-less bucket style storage to compete against S3.
Then maybe something document based to compete with Firebase
Then they can start hosting scalable apps and various DBs, indexes, etc., hopefully closer to how GCP does it compared to AWS or Azure, GCP is my go to but I'd def. try an Apple solution.
Then it'd be neat if they tied in those services via API.
For Apple only apps, CloudKit is sick as it is and tightly integrated w/their SDK.
I hope they'd start small, maybe building on CloudKit for Apple-less bucket style storage to compete against S3.
Then maybe something document based to compete with Firebase
Then they can start hosting scalable apps and various DBs, indexes, etc., hopefully closer to how GCP does it compared to AWS or Azure, GCP is my go to but I'd def. try an Apple solution.
Then it'd be neat if they tied in those services via API.
Google and Microsoft seem to be doing pretty well, actually.
For Google's part, it is actually kind of exciting in that this is the first time since the DOS days (as in, the golden age of WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3) that Microsoft Office's dominance might actually be threatened by a viable competitor. Corel, Sun, Lotus, and countless free/OSS projects have tried over the past 30 years and have never managed to get the kind of foothold on that market that Google has. Now, this might not seem like it is an example of direct competition with AWS, but the key here is that as some businesses move to Google's Office products, they will also see value in adopting other Google technologies in their stack.
As far as Microsoft goes - they're already taking a significant amount of marketshare away from AWS and that rate is likely going to accelerate over the coming few years. There is a pretty significant customer base that currently uses AWS virtual machines for hosting "on-premise" enterprise systems, including Microsoft's own enterprise systems (Dynamics GP, RMS, SL, AX, NAV, CRM). Many of these systems are now considered legacy and most businesses are migrating off of those and onto actual cloud systems. One of the most significant ones (based on number of active installations) is Dynamics GP, and it will reach end-of-life at the end of 2029. It is expected that around 1/2 of Dynamics GP systems will be migrated to Dynamics 365 Cloud - which is hosted on Azure. AX and NAV have already been sunsetted but still have a very significant installed base (with a large number of those on AWS). It is expected that closer to 90% of those systems will eventually be migrated to Dynamics 365 Cloud for the simple reason that Dynamics 365 Business Central is based on NAV and Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations and Supply Chain Management are based on AX.
Well, Microsoft and Google have each already taken a pretty significant piece of AWS' business. As far as stability and features go - seems like Google and Azure both do pretty well in that regard. And one major feature missing from AWS' offering is a good Tier-1 or Tier-2 ERP offering that can compete with Dynamics, SAP, Acumatica, or Netsuite.
Definitely agree here.
If this is to even happen, Apple would have a lot of catching up to do. Hardly anyone can match the features and scale that AWS provides nowadays.
I can see it maybe being more of a niche product offering for app developers to help power their backends and such. That would make sense and would be more of a low hanging fruit for them to tackle.
I can see it maybe being more of a niche product offering for app developers to help power their backends and such. That would make sense and would be more of a low hanging fruit for them to tackle.
Releasing the software would be good for security research, and sell more Macs to people who want to roll their own private cloud.
Will never happen. There is no way Apple would release the back-end server software, even if running on M-series.
By this I am reminded of this:
And recall the quote:
Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Last edited: