Most folks can’t even conceive of even having a backup strategy.
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
Obviously the CEO of a direct competitor is going to downplay a competing product. No one here is, to my knowledge, the CEO of a major enterprise cloud provider. Hell, I as a paying iCloud customer don’t feel like they could do a good job here.
They may be able to replace their own dependencies on third parties, but that’s not really the same as actually competing with AWS.
These services are commodity products. Apple doesn't do commodity products.
These platforms are abstracted away by technologies like Terraform and OpenTofu by the majority of customers, who deliberately abstract them away because they DO NOT want to care about the specifics of each platform. The less they're tied to the platform, the more easily they can negotiate their next contract with a threat of leaving for a competitor, or else simply lift and shift if the pricing they can't negotiate gets worse.
These services are aimed at enterprise. Apple doesn't do enterprise.
These services have decades of experience at serving this space and building out the features that customers care about. Apple has none.
These services are decided on by people who look at feature checklists, not people who delight in the experience of using them (those people are the customers of the customers). Apple doesn't win in feature checklist fights.
Simple cost calculations and uptime are two of the largest determinators when selecting a service. Apple doesn't win in simple cost calculations (though I appreciate that it was suggested they might have an advantage), and its internet services are not known for their rock solid reliability (I say as someone who has used them every day for years, but would be hesitant to advise a client to rely on them).
The only customers who will care about Apple's specifics are those that specifically want something from the M-series, but that's a niche of a niche in the market. You'd need to develop that market for decades to get it to a point that it would be worth taking seriously.
These platforms are abstracted away by technologies like Terraform and OpenTofu by the majority of customers, who deliberately abstract them away because they DO NOT want to care about the specifics of each platform. The less they're tied to the platform, the more easily they can negotiate their next contract with a threat of leaving for a competitor, or else simply lift and shift if the pricing they can't negotiate gets worse.
These services are aimed at enterprise. Apple doesn't do enterprise.
These services have decades of experience at serving this space and building out the features that customers care about. Apple has none.
These services are decided on by people who look at feature checklists, not people who delight in the experience of using them (those people are the customers of the customers). Apple doesn't win in feature checklist fights.
Simple cost calculations and uptime are two of the largest determinators when selecting a service. Apple doesn't win in simple cost calculations (though I appreciate that it was suggested they might have an advantage), and its internet services are not known for their rock solid reliability (I say as someone who has used them every day for years, but would be hesitant to advise a client to rely on them).
The only customers who will care about Apple's specifics are those that specifically want something from the M-series, but that's a niche of a niche in the market. You'd need to develop that market for decades to get it to a point that it would be worth taking seriously.
Apple took that first step over 20 years ago when they invented something called the Xserve. It is as clear now as it was back then that Apple is not the company you want to partner with for anything enterprise related. Ever.
What a joke. iCloud is a total disaster and the very worst of Apple. When Dropbox was forced to move to the iCloud API, I gave up on Macs after 15 years and moved back to PC. (I do need frequent sync'ing for my workflow.) I must say I don't really miss the Mac. (I have an M2 MBAir and and an M1 MBPro -- corporate IT -- as doorstops in my office.)
I wish I could upvote this more than once.
Anytime any discussion of Apple in the Enterprise comes up, it is clear that most posters on MacRumors have no clue about he Enterprise environment. I have laugh at people who are comparing AWS (and Azure GPC) to iCloud. They are two very different products. To put it in a way that MR posters would understand, it is like comparing an iPhone (AWS) to a Motorola StarTec (iCloud)
It would be great for the longevity of our macs. Since the open core patcher looks like it won’t work anymore, 10 years from now m1 macs could have a second life running Linux.
Given that MacOS 26 supports containers with Apple's innovation this is almost a certainty. Why let you use containers with no place to use them in production?
On the one hand: LOL. Apple are awful at cloud and services. This would be hilariously bad.
On the other hand: while we consumers may put up with that, enterprise won’t, so perhaps if they did enter that market they’d finally be forced to up their game, and that might carry over into the consumer sphere.
On the third hand: yes, ARM is more efficient than X86, but AWS et al already offer ARM solutions, so how is this an advantage for Apple?
On the other hand: while we consumers may put up with that, enterprise won’t, so perhaps if they did enter that market they’d finally be forced to up their game, and that might carry over into the consumer sphere.
On the third hand: yes, ARM is more efficient than X86, but AWS et al already offer ARM solutions, so how is this an advantage for Apple?
I don’t think a lot of people realize that Apple is one of AWS’ biggest customers. It’s kind of a public secret at this point (article is from 2019 but is still relevant). Apple is not trying to compete with AWS. Instead it would be capturing a niche part of cloud that Apple could excel at.
I think the main thing here would be for Apple to develop a Mac-based cloud where they can do whatever they want to make it easier for devs to use. Right now Mac instances on AWS EC2 are kind of a pain to work with because of the way Apple forces Amazon to work around some of the limitations (for example, there is a physical motor that presses the power buttons on all the Mac mini’s in the datacenters because Apple won’t let Amazon control it through proprietary hardware).
I think the main thing here would be for Apple to develop a Mac-based cloud where they can do whatever they want to make it easier for devs to use. Right now Mac instances on AWS EC2 are kind of a pain to work with because of the way Apple forces Amazon to work around some of the limitations (for example, there is a physical motor that presses the power buttons on all the Mac mini’s in the datacenters because Apple won’t let Amazon control it through proprietary hardware).
We are not talking about consumer-facing file storage. AWS offer cloud-based computing and access to high-end GPUs. Yes AWS offers storage too,
the way this might work is, let's say you were writing an app to scan eBay for deals. You might run the scanner so it runs or AWS' cloud and then the scanner sends texts to you phone when it finds what you want. You would not need to buy your own cloud servers, just rent time on AWS. That is the kind of service Apple was thinking of. It is a business-to-business service, not consumer-facing
"I don't normally answer those types pf querys; but, I'm feeling a little sparky, tonight, so..."
I use both. It's the only way. When one gets cantankerous, I just ask the same question of the other.
Revenue is only the START of the equation. It's not about what you make, it's about what you keep.
I'd like to know what the back-end of an Apple AWS competitor would be running. For example, would it be running MacOS servers? Or would it be running Linux, UNIX, or ... (eek!) Windows servers? Edit: best I can tell is they use everything (Linux, UNIX, IBM AIX, and several others)...well, everything EXCEPT for Windows. That's what the Google machine tells me anyhow.
Even if Apple has a server OS, would they be able to do it on a mass scale to actually become a competitor with AWS...and with Microsoft Azure, and all the others? I kind of doubt that Apple would be able to take that on and still "be Apple".
Doesn't amazon already have graviton systems for exactly this reason? Apple isn't the only tech giant utilizing ARM in server environments. Meta does this too.
Apple isn't going to be competing with AWS, they'll be competing with providers like RackSpace or Oracle Cloud or even Google cloud.
As a long time AWS and Mac user, I can say that the idea of Apple providing an Enterprise-level service like AWS is highly unlikely. They just have the wrong mindset.
As a long time AWS and Mac user, I can say that the idea of Apple providing an Enterprise-level service like AWS is highly unlikely. They just have the wrong mindset.
In Ballmers defence, his first and largest critique of the iPhone was very swiftly changed. I highly doubt the iPhone would be as popular today if the only way to get one was still "pay the full cost of the device upfront AND sign up for a 2 year contract". He was laughably wrong about the physical keyboard, but in the first few years its popularity in business was initially severely hampered by a lack of enterprise support.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks "Apple has M* processors they could compete with AWS" doesn't understand what AWS provides. They wouldn't even compete with Oracle cloud, instead Apple would be competing with players like Digital Ocean.
The better path for Apple if they wanted to do this would be to make a deal with Amazon to provide Apple Silicon as an option. Unlikely to happen though. Plus, ARM processors are already very common and popular with the hyperscalers. I moved most of my AWS workload to ARM years ago for the savings.
This is a no go. The reason AWS is so good is that Amazon actually used it internally for years. They ate their own dog food here. Bezos made a decree early on that everything internally must have an api or everyone’s fired. Then they started renting out the infrastructure they used internally to others and aws was born.
Apple from what I can tell dont have anything like that kind of approach. So it’s just a waste of time. Selling storage is one thing, but selling whole computing infrastructure takes a certain kind of focus that would make me wonder why apple would bother? They’d only get it wrong.
Apple from what I can tell dont have anything like that kind of approach. So it’s just a waste of time. Selling storage is one thing, but selling whole computing infrastructure takes a certain kind of focus that would make me wonder why apple would bother? They’d only get it wrong.
I kinda wish he hadn't been so wrong about the pricing. $99 for a phone. I wish...
That's not really comparable to the situation now though. Apple was always great at making hardware with excellent UX. They weren't even new to the pocket-sized device category. Balmer's point was never "Apple aren't good at this area".
When it comes to cloud and services though. Apple aren't good at this area.
Do it! I hope this also means that they would develop their own server hardware, which would be great if trickled towards consumer tech.
Imagine a more open mac pro even compatible with gpus. Oh, dreams!
Imagine a more open mac pro even compatible with gpus. Oh, dreams!