"It's like AWS - but for everybody."
what? icloud has exactly zero things in common with AWS.
what? icloud has exactly zero things in common with AWS.
So it's not a 'data storage service in a remote data center'?
Sure, AWS is made for servers - but the core business is the same. Charge people (AWS charges developers) to store your data in our cloud. Apple charges consumers.
Different demographic, exact service. Btw, iCloud is like AWS because AWS has many services (S3, EC2, etc.). Just like iCloud has 'store all your images and files', and 'match your music via iTunes'. Two services, via the same underlying core product.
It's identical to AWS - except for the target market.
The only common thing they have is that they both are cloud services, i.e both Amazon and Apple use their remote servers to provide services to their customers.
It's everything else that's different, and it's an important difference. (Keep in mind that any two things are similar for some level of abstraction. E.g apple's and oranges = both fruits. A brown leather sofa and a black hole = both exist in this universe. That does not say much).
For example, iCloud (all it offers) could have been implemented on top of AWS.
AWS could not have been implemented on iCloud.
AWS is like an operating system, iCloud is like a few specific applications.
I prolly shouldn't have used the name 'iCloud' to describe what I meant. What I meant was, Apple has a clear business interest in selling access to a 'cloud digital infrastructure'. At first it was iTunes (they sold that access to the record labels, but consumers subsidized that effort), now they are selling it directly to consumers. They also did it with the App Store, then the Mac App Store (they sold access to third-party developers).
That's three major forays they have done into the 'cloud services' business, but they have not unified the branding - like Amazon has done. Doesn't mean they are not a heavyweight player.
Also, just because they are not competing head to head doesn't mean they aren't competing.
GM made trucks, Yamaha made bikes. They don't compete for the same customer, but they do compete for some customers in some market segments. So that makes them indirect competitors.
Right now, as it stands, there are some customers (technically oriented) that might have rolled their own iCloud solution on AWS - but now they might not because they can use Apple's. Sure, that's a very small % of the market right now...but my point is that at some point - within the next decade I think - Apple will be more direct. It's only inevitable - assuming they want to keep growing as long as they can.
Not just "could have". It actually IS implemented on AWS. iCloud uses AWS and Windows Azure as its backend.
Source: http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/03/icloud-azure-amazon/
> It's identical to AWS - except for the target market.
If anything, iCloud is more like Dropbox for "normal" users. It's more limited than Dropbox in what it stores, but it stores the majority case rather well, including system settings.
In any case, iCloud is most definitely not Apple's AWS.
I prolly shouldn't have used the name 'iCloud' to describe what I meant. What I meant was, Apple has a clear business interest in selling access to a 'cloud digital infrastructure'. At first it was iTunes (they sold that access to the record labels, but consumers subsidized that effort), now they are selling it directly to consumers. So they have made two major forays into the 'cloud infrastructure monetization' business....which is the same business Amazon is in with AWS. They also did it with the App Store, then the Mac App Store (they sold access to third-party developers). Sure, not in the identical way as Amazon did, but it's not that far off.
It's not that far fetched to see that they will eventually be competing head-to-head with AWS.
Well, each is more limited than the other. iCloud provides more stuff (synchronized key value store which can be used from more than one device at a time, etc.) but access to what it stores is more restricted.
okay, looked at from a naive enough perspective, they have similarities. they both can be described using the buzzword 'cloud', but it doesn't go much beyond that. they do not perform the same task. they do not serve the same market. they do not have a similar interface. one service cannot replace the other. drawing any sort of comparison between the two is completely meaningless to the discussion at hand.
Regardless, the point is moot. My main point I was making is that iCloud is still a very small business for Apple - when what Amazon has shown us (even though they haven't broken out the financials) is that monetizing your excess capacity can be a viable business. If Apple knows how to do anything, it is to build viable products.