You've heard a lot of talk about the cloud in the past few years. We were told how great it was, how much better it was going to make things, and how much more the companies we trust would be able to do when they went all-in with "the cloud." But really, what the hell does it all mean, and how can everything break when just a tiny bit of it goes funky?
I'll be honest, the average consumer has no idea what exactly the cloud is or how it works, even though many products and services we use depend on it. There is no shame in this. We aren't even really sure how many tech products work. However, we don't have to know any of this to use the tech in our lives. The only time we care about the cloud is when things go wrong.
I'm no network engineer charged with the impossible task of keeping any sort of cloud up and running. But like many of you, I know one thing: A cloud outage can royally screw things up. If you didn't know that, November and December of 2021 probably taught you everything you needed to know. We saw Facebook or Meta (or whatever it calls itself now) go squirrely. We saw Google managed to keep all the services we use working. Still, we couldn't access them because "the cloud," and Amazon's AWS (Amazon Web Services) went down like the Titanic twice in one week.
The reasons why these cloud platforms crashed and burned were typical errors that humans make every single day. Mistakes that humans will continue to make every day. It's difficult to be angry at Amazon because your gadgets stopped working, or in Google's case, be upset because you couldn't read an email, or even be perturbed at Facebook because Instagram didn't post your selfie. When you understand that these outages weren't the result of the companies doing anything wrong, and were fixed once found, you really can't blame them. Instead, this is the one time you should hate the game and not the players.
The idea of "the cloud" is great, but the execution is broken. Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are the outliers because they actually use their own cloud infrastructure to drive their services, so there is no finger-pointing. They own it. They broke it. They have to fix it. A bigger problem (and the real issue) is that every other company depends on another company to power their business.
There are plenty of cloud service providers, but a small handful essentially powers everything. Amazon (opens in new tab), Microsoft (opens in new tab), Google, Alibaba, Oracle, and IBM are the companies that really control the internet. These companies have giant cloud infrastructure that they offer to companies that don't want to build their own. These companies can take down a giant swath of the internet, including how smart gadgets work when there is a problem. And this isn't likely to change anytime soon.
If you're a customer, the cloud is crazy expensive to use but building out your own internet-enabled infrastructure is unthinkable because of the costs to build and maintain. Take something like a simple, smart camera. If I owned a company that made a great camera, I would want it to be able to tell you whenever it sees something you told me to monitor, so I would need to send you a message on your phone. That means I would need a robust app for Android and iOS, ideally a website that could show you everything on both WebKit browsers like Chrome or Safari and browsers with a different rendering engine like Firefox. I would also want to provide storage online for customers that want it.
I could find the people to build the best home security system with a smart camera in the world and still be unable to offer any connected features without using Amazon, Microsoft, or Google. Or a combination of the three. My customers — that'd be you, hopefully — want these features, so if I want to compete, I need to work with another company that runs "the cloud." And this is before I get creative and add compatibility with digital assistants like Alexa or Google Assistant. I'm forced to use a cloud service provider unless I find a sugar daddy that will float me a few billion to build my own. My cameras go down when Amazon, Google, or Microsoft go down. No ifs, no ands, no buts.
Who do you blame here? Really, this is a situation that benefits everyone involved. Companies that can build a cloud-computing platform gain customers, while companies that offer services or products that need cloud infrastructure can get it at an acceptable price. We then get the services and gadgets we want that work how we want them to work. There is nothing wrong with this until something breaks, and everything else falls like dominoes.
My gut says that the companies that depend on the cloud should foot the bill and use multiple providers to make sure things don't all go down at once. My brain says all this would increase the cost of everything we want to use. Cloud service providers like Amazon could build redundancy into everything. So if it breaks, someone could flip a switch and move everything to the backup cloud. Guess what? This means the costs of using cloud services increases, and to make up for it, we pay more for the services and gadgets we want to use.
I have no idea how this can be fixed, and really, is a few hours a year of not having access to your Roomba or not seeing the latest post on Instagram that big of a deal? Probably not, but cloud outages can also affect smart door locks or critical infrastructure like traffic lights. Fighting through rush hour traffic with all the traffic lights inoperable, only to get home and be locked out of your house, is a good bit worse than not being able to have Alexa turn on your television and play a show on Netflix.
I don't need to know how to fix this, and neither do you. But some people need to figure it out, and hopefully, those people are working on it. So far, cloud outages have been an inconvenience, but the potential for things to be much worse is real.
Android Central Newsletter
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips
I love technology I really do but there is a lot to be said for living the disconnected life. We really shouldn't let it dominate every aspect of our lives. Not everything has to be smart. My dependency on the cloud is there but I keep it at a minimum.
I'm with you. I don't need to live and die with technology. Cities could fix the traffic light issue addressed here with a more efficient solution: the round-a-bout. Carrying keys is not an encumbrance. I'll likely never have a smart dead bolt for the reasons addressed in this article. Physical keys are easy insurance. A recent motor trend article discussed all the changes self driving cars are going to bring. The article was full of Bentley level interiors with smart panels on every surface. Self driving cars aren't going to automatically make your run of the mill Chevy or Honda into a futuristic space pod. They mentioned likely not needing seatbelts in the future. This article tells me that isn't going to happen. I mean we still have to airplane mode our phones to fly, and yet is there any flight that has gone down that was attributed to someone's cellphone? I think we put too much faith in technology to save us.
The technology to keep the cloud up and running 99.9% of the time has existed for years. For every possible connection you can conceive of there is the ability to have automatic failover redundancy built in. About the only scenario where it will fail is a thermonuclear explosion that obliterates not only the servers but also the electrical grid that carries all the signals to and from the satellites in stationary orbits around the earth.
But you hit the nail on the head when you said the limiting factor is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Boat loads of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ as well as the people with the needed expertise to put it all in place.
These large companies that use the cloud are not exactly short of cash. They could build redundancy into there systems, no problem. Failures would still happen but the impact would be drastically reduced. Just do it you cheap ****** gits.
Finbaar, there are redundancies, be aware redundancies may have issues.. BTW, “…into there systems…” should read “their.”
Correcting a person's grammer is obnoxious. His meaning was clear therefore it was effective communication.
Now that's the truth right their...
Thank you for your comment. Yes, effective as spoken, not as written. One of the numerous reasons folks make spelling, grammar, and punctuation, errors is nobody tells them they did, thus unwittingly they continue making the same errors. Your reply is what we hear in business from interns and college graduates writing documents, thinking their meaning is clear and that is all that matters, when mistakes are brought to their attention they become miffed. It is their acceptance of mediocrity, a dumbing down, it began in school where teachers and parents are afraid of hurting feelings. Recall, in business when reading a document nobody cares who wrote the document, however when there are mistakes the person blamed is the person signing off on the document. Also, on this site for some folks English is not their first language, any assistance we provide helps them, and others as well. To quote Aristotle “We are what we repeatedly do, excellence is not an art it is a habit.” Also, under pressure you are not going to rise to the level of your occasion, in the challenge you’re going to sink to your discipline.
Maybe these companies need to focus more on reliability and less on political issues.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips
Thank you for signing up to Android Central. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.