A multi-platform approach destroys most of the cloud's value proposition in the name of avoiding vendor lock-in. At that point you're essentially only using the provider as a glorified data center manager, and I'm pretty sure the DOD has more than enough money to run their own data centers.
1. Surely there is no way for any "multi-cloud" company to keep up with the constant changes and growth of products at all these companies that they can abstract between them in any meaningful way without constantly falling behind.
2. And if there is some purpose right now, is that purpose sustainable? Why would Amazon not have every incentive at some point to make it as easy as possible for an existing Microsoft customer to migrate workloads over to their platform, and vice versa. And if/when they get into the game, isn't that essentially game over for any independent product?
This is the appeal of kubernetes.
And yes, it does make cloud providers glorified datacenters. I think k8s is an existential threat to aws long term. They're not going to be able to maintain their profit margins on ec2.
If you’re only using the cloud to do VMs at scale, you’re probably spending more than baremetal and spending just as much on maintenance. Kubernetes adds yet another level of complexity.
I'm hoping the same thing happens with Knative.
This is what flies in the face of multicloud efforts for me.
Now, most of the big cloud provider's new revenue comes from enabling migrations to cloud infrastructure. But that's a finite amount of work.
At some future point, everyone who will has already been migrated to the cloud. At that point, all the cloud provider's new business will be in the form of enabling migrations from existing clouds.
And then you'll have the resources of Amazon / Microsoft / Google working to enable migrations. Which seems a lot more successful resource match.
(That said, at that point cloud vendors could also really start actively turning the screws on making that difficult. But in a three-party world, where two parties don't, it seems unlikely that would succeed in the long run.)
But single-sourcing your cloud destroys any remaining value proposition: If you become dependent on a single cloud provider's services, they can charge you as much as they want once the current contract is up, and your lock-in means you're going to end up paying it. (Or we all are, since it's the DOD and we pay taxes.) The ten billion dollar contract is nice to have now, but I'm sure Microsoft and Amazon are both really licking their lips for the forty billion dollar renewal ten years later.
The concern over vendor lock-in and pricing is one that gets thrown around often, but doesn't really make sense to me. When has Amazon, Microsoft, et al gouged one of their larger customers in the past? Why would they do that when it would destroy their reputation and scare away business?
A large customer working with a large company is like any other negotiation, both have leverage and there isn't any feasible scenario where Amazon or Microsoft go completely crazy and start gouging their customers for some short-term gain.
Companies that get screwed are those who aren't big enough to negotiate that kind of deal up front.
But no, a Top 50 or large government type contract is never going to be at the mercy of unexpected price hikes.
I don't have enough eyes to roll at the cluelessness of your comment.