Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wozniak Predicts Horrible Problems With the Cloud

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the no-silver-lining dept.

Cloud 331

Hugh Pickens writes "'I think it's going to be horrendous,' said Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak when asked about the shift away from hard disks towards uploading data into the cloud. The comment came in a post-performance dialogue with audience members after a performance in Washington of The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, monologist Mike Daisey's controversial two-hour expose of Apple's labor conditions in China. 'I think there are going to be a lot of horrible problems in the next five years.' The engineering wizard behind the progenitor of today's personal computer, the Apple II, expanded on what really worried him about the cloud. 'With the cloud, you don't own anything. You already signed it away through the legalistic terms of service with a cloud provider that computer users must agree to. I want to feel that I own things,' Wozniak said. 'A lot of people feel, "Oh, everything is really on my computer," but I say the more we transfer everything onto the web, onto the cloud, the less we're going to have control over it.'"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40897083)

....but, sadly, doesn't.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (5, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | about 2 years ago | (#40897207)

....but, sadly, doesn't.

(The other one isn't saying much)

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897299)

O, ye of little faith.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897375)

Too soon?

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (5, Funny)

whargoul (932206) | about 2 years ago | (#40897455)


Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#40897749)

....but, sadly, doesn't.

(The other one isn't saying much)

Too soon?

+5, Funny says no.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897715)

im so glad that asshole got cancer and died...

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (3, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#40897893)

I'm not sure Jobs perished from a rectal cancer.
May your sphincter fare better, in any case.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#40897911)

im so glad that asshole got cancer and died...

That was a pancreatic cancer, not a colorectal one.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897873)

....but, sadly, doesn't.

(The other one isn't saying much)

And yet they're still listening to him more closely.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40897305)

He's not at Apple and has not been for a long while.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (2, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#40897381)

I thought he still had a symbolic $1/year job and title there.

Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (5, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 2 years ago | (#40897447)

He's not at Apple and has not been for a long while.

Wrong. He may not work there daily, but he is still listed as an employee of Apple []

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897481)

Must be true since it came form wikipedia....

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (4, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 2 years ago | (#40897613)

Must be true since it came form wikipedia....

Wiki was first I found to easily cite. Then the 3 sources back up the wiki claim. I think it's fair.

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (4, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40897839)

I never quit Apple. That suggestion was based on an incorrect Wall Street Journal that said I was leaving Apple because I didn't like things there. Actually, I had told the Wall Street Journal writer that I wasn't leaving Apple because of things that I didn't like and that I wasn't even leaving, keeping my small salary forever as a loyal employee. I just wanted a small startup experience and a chance to design a smaller product again, a universal remote control.

--Steve Wozniak []

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (3, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40897877)

Almost forgot:

$ whois

[...] Registrant Name:Steve Wozniak[...]

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897757)

He still draws a check, sure but that's different than being a functional member of the organization.

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (5, Funny)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#40897837)

"He still draws a check, sure but that's different than being a functional member of the organization."

I bet he isn't a true Scotsman either.

Re:Incorrect -- Woz is still employed by Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897887)

He still draws a check, sure but that's different than being a functional member of the organization.

Too true, on soooo many levels.

(And for the dense-enough-to-be-a-neutron-star crowd - that's not a dig at Woz. It's aimed at useless employees and managers everywhere.)

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897433)

He may be right, but remember he's the original homebrew PC hardware tinkerer.

What do you expect him to say, "Wow, it's just awesome that we can leave the hardware and system-level stuff to Amazon/Microsoft/Oracle/HP/IBM so we can concentrate on our business needs".

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40897505)

I think it is only the top level suit wearing monkeys that think that having something open to homebrew AND it easy for the corporates of the world are totally incompatible items.

This being slashdot I'm sure someone here doesn't agree with this... flame on!

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897591)

Wozniak just doesn't seem to get it.... Have you seen the contents of his backpack, soon he will have to hire a mulepack.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (1, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40897659)

Yeah because the true genius that is Woz went on to do so much later in life and it's not like he's still collecting a paycheck from the big bad evil Apple.

Look, I like the guy too but just because he's ignored / unknown by most people doesn't mean he's the greatest fountain of knowledge. It could just mean he's happy doing very little while sitting on his big ass pile of money as i probably would be too.

There is nothing wrong with storing data or doing tasks on the internet. Like anything else being overly reliant on it or using it where it doesn't make sense is dumb. However things like the nearly $5,000 per hours super computer set up on Amazon for cancer research is isn't something easily achievable on physical hardware. Not because it's not possible but because it's pretty fucking expensive.

Even simple things. It made sense ot put files, like MP3s, I wanted access to on an FTP site and it makes more sense for me to put them somewhere more acessible to more of my devices. Some of us leave our mother's basement so it's nice to have things off our desktop.

Re:The Steve at Apple everyone SHOULD listen to (5, Informative)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#40897755)

perhaps you are not understanding what he is saying.
At Home: Files secure. In Cloud: unknown variables. Server down, backup processes, human intervention, government intervention, service turned off without notice
At Home: Legally yours, and cannot be searched without a search warrant. In Cloud: Search warrant given to cloud provider, if at all, and data is searched without your knowledge.
At Home: Files not datamined unless you download a virus. In Cloud: you can be sure, datamined.
At Home: Files are accessed by known individuals pending hacking In Cloud: People you dont know have access.

So... maybe you are right, simple files like MP3s can be stored there, just be sure you have proof of purchase, lest the RIAA come after you.
Hey... maybe you can store the Proof of Purchase on the cloud!

Creator vs. Consumer (5, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#40897151)

Woz is a creator. So was Jobs. But they both needed Consumers - Jobs was more aware of that than Woz obviously.

Woz wants to build something, own it, and carry it around in his pocket. Most modern IT stuff is designed to give you a means to consume content.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897215)

I love your signature.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#40897313)

User generated content has been a revolution. People get news and information from each other instead of central news agencies and big content providers. The whole attraction of things like Twitter and Facebook, and of course Slashdot, is the user generated content.

People are no longer consumers of content, they are creators. The shift now is that instead of creating on your PC and uploading you can create online directly. I have documents that I made entire in Google Docs, web pages and blog posts written entirely in a CMS, G+ posts that never touch my HDD. I back what I can up locally but a lot of people use them as their only storage medium, trusting that they will never go away or steal their work or otherwise abuse it. And as Woz says, no-one reads the T&Cs.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40897397)

And what happens when the cloud provider decides to start "messing" with your online creations? Just last week Amazon announced they were converting people's stored-on-the-cloud songs to higher quality 256kbps versions.

In theory that sounds okay, but what if Amazon makes a mistake and replaces a personal song (perhaps you singing David guetta's "Titanium") with the official song release. Ooops. You just lost your creation.

You can't trust other people with your data, anymore than you can trust a random stranger to borrow your CD or car and return it unscratched/clean.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40897553)

Just goes to show you that there isn't one pure solution to all problems.

That's a central tenet to detecting bullshit. There is no man made system that can solve all problems. When someone comes at you with the phrase like "the cloud is the perfect solution" then you should detect bullshit.

Nothing is ever going to replace your own local backup copy. Your own local backup copy supplements your online backup copy and vice versa.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897907)

...Nothing is ever going to replace your own local backup copy. Your own local backup copy supplements your online backup copy and vice versa....

Cloud: Out of sight, out of mind. Hey, and [they] don't even have to touch anything to make sure it keeps happening on its own! It's the True American Way(sm), sadly.

Keep thought to a minimum, and spending as a result of fear to the maximum.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897579)

Wow, you mean random strangers actually borrow your car and returned it scratched and dirty? I'd expect to never see the car again :p

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#40897769)

That was exactly my point. I keep backups of all of it because I don't trust the cloud providers. Google Docs could randomly change the UI to make it unusable, Picasa could device to ditch the original resolution versions of my photos, Twitter could device my weather station isn't a real person with tweeting rights.

It's damn convenient, but you can never trust them with anything valuable.

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40897789)

A lot of the boilerplate turns over ownership, or at least lets them search through it at their heart's content.

It's like renting a storage unit with the contract stating they now own your stuff in there and can take it out for a spin whenever they feel like it.

There is an opportunity for good old-fashioned online storage and CPU cycle rental.

Wow, "good old-fashioned CPU cycle rental".

Re:Creator vs. Consumer (3, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#40897645)

Woz is a creator. So was Jobs. But they both needed Consumers - Jobs was more aware of that than Woz obviously.

Woz was his own consumer. He probably would have lived a perfectly happy life with none beyond that and maybe a few fellow enthusiasts.

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897177)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897293)

alexander peter kowalski
903 east division st.
syracuse, ny 13208

dob: 01/31/1965

jan kowalski
dob: 12/03/1933

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897389)

The Truth! wants to be Known!

It sits on one side of consciousness, trying to get though.

Putting crazy words in your head that make no sense.

Ideas without words.

Words without ideas.

A glimpse of something else, a thought immediately forgotten.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897493)

DNS cube?

what suck-ass lily-livered cur modded this down?!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897777)

KUDOS valiant AC.
You show clear proof that the Mayans were right, the eschatachon is rapidly approaching, and the only way to not be EDUCATED STUPID is to accept MyCleanPC as your personal savior and maintain the purity of your HOSTS file.

He's right (4, Interesting)

Jailbrekr (73837) | about 2 years ago | (#40897181)

you *should* be concerned. It started with hotmail when they disabled the ability to download email to your home computer, and its only going to get worse. I literally cannot archive my email to an offline store and it is, in effect, owned by Microsoft. They can do with it as they wish, and I can't stop them.

Re:He's right (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40897247)

Screen scrape 'em 'til it hurts. I'll bet there's a script floating around somewhere that makes it easy.

Print them (0)

KalvinB (205500) | about 2 years ago | (#40897441)

You can sync your hotmail account with Outlook. For really important emails, I print to PDF and store with Subversion. I use my GMail account through Outlook as well. It's much easier to work with.

pop (5, Informative)

slashmojo (818930) | about 2 years ago | (#40897453)

Hotmail provides pop3 access so you can certainly download your mail.

Re:He's right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897477)

That's not true. I have my entire hotmail account stored on my machine with Live Mail, which to me, is every bit as good as Outlook.. better, because each email is stored in .eml format, not in some very easily corruptible database

Re:He's right (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 2 years ago | (#40897629)

This is why I still run my own mail server.

Re:He's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897733)

And thank you! I use your email server, too! Sorry you didn't know about it until now...

Re:He's right (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40897697)

Don't rely on freebies then. It's only a couple bucks per month to use rackspace's email services and a couple bucks per year for a domain and you can use it how you want. It's acessible to most people. For those with more ability run your own server. But if you're using a free service don't be surprised if they want you going to the site and looking at ads.

So does everyone in IT... (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40897191)

Only people who are really in favor of the cloud are in management.

Re:So does everyone in IT... (5, Insightful)

Jailbrekr (73837) | about 2 years ago | (#40897341)

I disagree. there are some valid applications for the cloud, such as outsourcing low volume or low priority services such as FTP or fax. But once you cross the line into storing office documents then the business risk grows exponentially. It is all about finding a balance.

Re:So does everyone in IT... (5, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 years ago | (#40897407)

There are a number of people who gain from moving stuff to the cloud:

Cloud providers for one. They can charge rates near the cost of a full fledged data center [1], and they really have no responsibilities for security or backups. Security breaches can be hushed with the finger pointed at the client. Legal action? If someone finds something sue-able, good luck getting past the binding arbitration clause which essentially sue-proofs the cloud provider. Of course, don't forget that if/when that cloud provider goes under, the next owner has full and unrestricted access to the server data (the data from Borders being bought out by B&N comes to mind). Far less scrupulous organizations can buy the servers too. PII? Here is the magnet link, hope someone cares enough to keep the seed going.

PHBs without any ITIL or other basic IT experience love the cloud. It means that someone else shoulders things and keeps staff small. Plus, it isn't their responsibility should data get lost or a security breach happen. By the time blame actually gets assigned, the breach would be forgotten about.

Blackhats love the cloud. Imagine having access to the backend hard drives of hundreds of businesses, all at once. Just sit back and copy anything relevant, or if bored with a business, start altering some figures on stored documents so that company faces big penalties from the IRS or the EU. If an intruder really hates the cloud provider, it doesn't take much to drop all backend LUNs, stored snapshots, and replications.

ISPs love the cloud. They can also watch the bits fly past, not to mention the bandwidth costs for businesses relying on the cloud.

Of course, the cloud has its uses. However, once someone gets an encryption key management framework in place, an ability to have known good backups, yadda, yadda, with the bandwidth charges and charges for fatter pipes to and from the cloud service, it might be far cheaper to just have a data center.

[1]: Regardless of where the servers are located, a company has to buy them to host locally, or is going to pay someone else's cost to have them in their facility. The cost of the server will be paid for, somehow.

Re:So does everyone in IT... (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40897615)

I wish I could attribute the quote, but someone said that, as far as us old IT farts are concerned, "the cloud" is just a synonym for "someone else's server."

There are people that know stuff in IT and there are bullshit marketing artists. The latter category are the ones that think "the cloud" is something new. People will put too much data to "the cloud" and get burned and the pendulum will swing back the other way again to local storage.

Re:So does everyone in IT... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897817)

All our money, financials, retirement plans, and other critical data have been "in the cloud" for many decades. The whole argument that you have no control or the data is on 'someone else's server' is pretty silly. Banking, for example, has worked infinitely better than people stuffing cash under their bed mattresses and counting it every day just to make sure its all still there and hoping someone doesn't break in and steal it.

It is far easier, safer and more cost effective to protect something of value stored in a central location (vault) than it is for everyone to try and do it themselves. As a benefit, the biggest cloud providers can hire the worlds best security and software engineers to ensure it remains secure and available, and they can roll out a single patch to fix any bugs instantly - compared to millions of small shops remaining vulnerable for years. In effect, you can do things at scale that could never be achieved by all the endless companies and individuals on their own.

One word... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897201)


Dropbox/Google Drive/Skydrive/Wuala/Ubuntu One/etc (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40897213)

My Cloud recipe for success: encrypt all data you upload and use local apps to open/consume/create it all. Don't forget to use your own meatspace backup system of choice from time to time. All the taste none of the fat.

Re:Dropbox/Google Drive/Skydrive/Wuala/Ubuntu One/ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897255)

I'll keep my head in the clouds and feet on the ground. This guy needs to shut up and worry more about his diet plan!

File this under "no shit" (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#40897217)

We've already seen what can happen when a cloud service goes down. Amazon and Microsoft's Azure have both went down recently, causing havoc for many businesses. When Megaupload went down, it caused a huge loss for many legitimate customers as well. If your Steam account gets suspended, or you disagree with the new TOS - you're shit out of luck, all that you "own" is gone for good and you can't do shit about it. Dropbox lost a shitload of emails due to a security breach, Sony lost the details for 70million+ customers for a similar reason. Every single example of a cloud operation that I can think of, be it a service or a product, has had issues and it's not going to change.

The cloud is a wonderful idea in principal, but we need a completely different outlook on it. And possibly a hell of a lot of new laws governing ownership of the content.

Re:File this under "no shit" (2)

defected (908047) | about 2 years ago | (#40897353)

You should always have a local copy... like with dropbox...

Re:File this under "no shit" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897377)

in principal

That's principle. Handy trick I learned in elementary school: "If you're a smart kid, the principal will be your pal."

Re:File this under "no shit" (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#40897471)

Hey, I got a free The Daily WTF mug out of Microsoft Azure, so I consider it a net gain.

Re:File this under "no shit" (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#40897473)

If your Steam account gets suspended, or you disagree with the new TOS - you're shit out of luck, all that you "own" is gone for good and you can't do shit about it.

It every time sends me cold shivers through my spine when someone talks about his Steam library of hundreds of games, which they cherish in a same way like some bookshelf collection.

Re:File this under "no shit" (1)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#40897551)

I actually have quite an extensive Steam collection myself, despite the above rant. I mean, the cloud certainly has its uses and I love that I can install a new PC, download steam and have all my games ready to download whenever. If something happens to my account, I will be pretty pissed off but it'll give me complete legitimacy in pirating every game I own - once again, the cloud to the rescue.

Suffice it to say, I like steam, but their recent TOS change and the ever looming threat of account bannage do piss me off.

Re:File this under "no shit" (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#40897781)

It's funny, too. After railing about steam and their horrible TOS for so long and being shouted down by world + dog, I actually started thinking that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong and I was being a little unreasonable. So I bit the bullet and bought my first Steam game.

It was Borderlands GOTY, on sale, on July 29. 2 days later, they came out with that new "We're above the courts" TOS and I had to try[0] to cancel my account. I'm only out 8 bucks, but that was seriously a facepalm moment. I hate being right all the damn time.

[0] Emphasis on "Try to." The TOS says to cancel, you need to contact support through the Steam website. Ain't no categories there about cancelling your account, and the stupid thing doesn't let you leave it blank if nothing matches. I went for my best guess ("Suspended account") figuring it would at least get to the accounts department or whatever, and still haven't heard back from them.

Fuck Valve and Steam.

Re:File this under "no shit" (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40897719)

All of your points are correct but the risks are certainly manageable with due diligence and planning.

Amazon and Microsoft's Azure have both went down recently, causing havoc for many businesses.

We don't use either of these services since we don't really need the scale but I would imagine that provided they didn't go down too long, money is still saved in the aggregate. You have to look at the numbers and strike the right balance. What is the likely downtime of $CLOUD_IAAS_PROVIDER? Will that much downtime cost us more in money, goodwill, and customers than just building and maintaining our own gear? What hurts is just jumping on the bandwagon with both eyes closed. We use Google Apps here but we also keep copies of all of our documents and emails on the premises. The value adds like collaborative editing, etc. are nice but we could go a few hours without them. And we might not be able to get new emails during an outage but we can definitely read the old ones and send what we need to with different accounts temporarily. Running our own mail server isn't really something we're interested in getting into but so far Google's been pretty reliable and they'd be damn fools to misuse the little amount of strategic info they could glean from our communications as the goodwill fallout if something like that came to light would destroy them.

When Megaupload went down, it caused a huge loss for many legitimate customers as well.

A stack of blank DVDs is like 10 bucks at the walgreens down the street. There is no way I would make the mistake of thinking that something like or is some kind of legitimate back up service. That's pretty much laughable. Hopefully the word got out to people that don't realize this and they won't be making the same mistake again.

If your Steam account gets suspended, or you disagree with the new TOS - you're shit out of luck, all that you "own" is gone for good and you can't do shit about it.

I've never bought anything through Steam but as far as I can tell, the only thing you actually have to pay for is the games and DLC for the games you have. The social features are just added stickiness keeping people there but you aren't directly paying for them. I have a Steam account but only as a test of installing the client on Linux. It works, I can browse stuff and participate but I've never spent a dime. I say that to say this, if I lost access to my games, I'm pretty sure I could find some backups [] somewhere. I paid so I wouldn't feel bad at all doing that.

Dropbox lost a shitload of emails due to a security breach

That didn't have anything to do with their cloud stuff though as that was chalked up to an employee's stupidity of having a weak password on a laptop or something. It could have happened to anybody that happened to have some personal info about users. I think the UK lost a bunch of data a while back by some goof being careless.

Sony lost the details for 70million+ customers for a similar reason

Heh. Sony. No sympathy. Their customers didn't deserve that though. My suggestion is use a different email for all of your online stuff. Maybe use some pattern like or whatever floats your boat. Same thing for passwords. Of course nobody does that but it is a solution.

Every single example of a cloud operation that I can think of, be it a service or a product, has had issues and it's not going to change.

Yeah, if it's a server hooked up to the 'net, it has the potential to be hacked. Act accordingly and encrypt your data if you're uploading files, make backups, don't use the same credentials across different sites as you are trusting the security of the person you gave those credentials to and always assume that the provider will go under at some point or be bought out. Personally I use "cloud" services like its going out of style but I keep my wits about me and have had no problems yet.

Re:File this under "no shit" (0)

LudwigVMises (2635637) | about 2 years ago | (#40897809)

> The cloud is a wonderful idea in principal, but we need a completely different **outlook** on it. Actually, Outlook runs locally on your PC.

That Mike Daisey? (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40897223)

Why would Woz legitimize the work of that liar [] ?

Outages (1)

vinng86 (1978262) | about 2 years ago | (#40897227)

When millions of people all of a sudden can't access their data due to some technical fault, you're going to have a bad day.

good post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897241)

my co-worker's aunt makes $75/hour on the internet. She has been fired from work for six months but last month her income was $15988 just working on the internet for a few hours. Here's the site to read more

The masses will always be OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897249)

If there really is going to be a massive problem with the cloud, it will be solved before it affects too many people. It can't be any other way. Whenever a majority of people suffer more than they are willing to accept, the mistakes are corrected in their favor. That's why credit card fraud isn't the terrible problem that it should be given the massive security flaws. That's why daily life goes on despite the biggest financial crisis still in effect. The cloud will hurt some people badly, but the odds of that being you are miniscule.

How to fix the cloud in 2 easy steps (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#40897251)

Everyone runs a cloud storage service (CSS) on their own computer(s). This service functions as a repository of all things yours, but has peer functionality, so my laptops can replicate what is on my SAN. So the same laptop does not always need to be on. Services (applications) can be assigned read/write permissions.
Every cloud application provider (facebook etc) functions as a proxy. I tell the CSS to peer to facebook, and they use a mechanism similar to DHCP to negotiate the current location of the CSS. Facebook stores nothing. If I close the app account (facebook account) I can revoke all the access for the application. I still have all my data.

Since the CSS is just an application using standard interfaces, there's no reason why I can't partner with google to provide the storage service if I do not want to maintain my own. But this is my choice, and I always have my data.

Where is the logic? (1)

Ramirozz (758009) | about 2 years ago | (#40897257)

So basically he is saying that a method of technology is flawed because his (and other people) buying behaviours are not compatible with it...

Re:Where is the logic? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#40897289)

I think his point sounded more like "horrendous things will happen because I don't like it."

No. (1)

logicassasin (318009) | about 2 years ago | (#40897513)

With local storage, you are only subject to failures in your immediate control (to a degree, hardware failures are not necessarily your fault, but can be mitigated in the event of one with proper planning). With cloud storage, you're no longer in control of your data. You have effectively handed complete control of your data to a third party and are pretty much at their mercy. Cloud provider has an outage? You're screwed until they're up and running again. Cloud provider decided to up their rates? They can pretty much hold your data hostage until you pay. Cloud provider wants to make extra money? For a price, they can/will/have allow(ed) governments to peruse your data for signs you may be a terrorist or have terrorist ties... At least this will be the justification the alphabet suits will give (i.e. FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.)

Buy a NAS, keep your data at home.

Incorrect summary - not an expose (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40897263)

An expose would reveal, well, reality.

Mike Daisey was found to have fabricated all of the issues he raises against Apple.

Cloud is great...for the Providers... (1)

killfixx (148785) | about 2 years ago | (#40897267)

This is a no-brainer. Because they offer you pre-built solutions, for a monthly recurring fee that's cheaper than what you would have to pay (amortized over 5 years) to go it alone, they get to dictate the terms of the contract. They also get to fail and provide no "real" restitution for their failure. Your Virtualized Data Center is gone because we had a power outage in Bangladesh. Oh, you didn't buy the "Value Add Package", that means we don't have to provide any discounts or recompense for lost business or data. If you'd paid extra to have the data hosted locally, that would have been different.


Of course, your pointy haired boss will insist on "cloud", you'll get right on it to keep your job. "Cloud" will fail, boss blames you, you lose job anyway.

If ya wanna save on infrastructure, why not have any applicable workforce telecommute, that'll save millions just on heat and electricity.


Re:Cloud is great...for the Providers... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897687)


Of course, your pointy haired boss will insist on "cloud", you'll get right on it to keep your job. "Cloud" will fail, boss blames you, you lose job anyway.

Grow a spine, faggert.

the cloud is the ultimate monthly payment scam (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#40897269)

for years car dealers pushed monthly payments to clueless buyers to scam them into higher prices. same with the cloud.

dropbox, only $100 a year
cloud storage of music? $25 a year via itunes or amazon
remote backup? $50 a year
virtual server? $xxxx a month. oh you don't like the service, OK just buy your own for $15000 plus hosting

dollar here and dollar there and soon its real money

when you think about it a machine at your location is a consumer class CPU/hard drive. cloud provider will have multiple machines with enterprise class CPU's, overpriced enterprise hard drives, precious metal support contracts, etc. I bet the hardware vendors love it and are pushing the cloud hype through the tech media

Re:the cloud is the ultimate monthly payment scam (2)

Junta (36770) | about 2 years ago | (#40897761)

I bet the hardware vendors love it and are pushing the cloud hype through the tech media

Actually, long term it isn't such a good prognosis for hardware vendors. The big winners (EC2 for example) do not bother investing in low-level resiliancy, meaning machines can fail at will without breaking Amazon promises. The guidance is that you, as service architect, should architect your solution for failure anyway, so why should amazon bother paying more to cover a risk that is best handled at app level? The bullet proof hardware configurations have very high profit margin.

The other high profit margin area is manageability and serviceability. When you need to recover quickly from failure, quick identification and replacement is key. This can relate to the above point, where a hardware outage duration could in theory be tied to business-critical data or compute time. Also, given economies of scale, a small setup may have unacceptable performance degradation without full capacity, in a shared facility economies of scale mean diminished capacity is less likely to be noticed, and a week or two of turnaround time for replaced failed components may not be a big deal.

The big hardware names are using the word 'cloud' to entice companies to move more and more into the datacenter, but keep it private so that those economies of scale don't obsolete the value of their service.

My overall take is simple, it's very much like renting a car. If you don't need the full capacity of even one server, then a hosting service may be appropriate. If you, however, need multiple racks of equipment, it's likely that cloud is actually a losing proposition. There is a grey area for debate in the middle.

It's all about profit and control (4, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | about 2 years ago | (#40897277)

Moving to the cloud, whether Apple or Microsoft or any of the other players, has two main purposes:

- Guarantee ongoing profits through subscriptions and micro-payments to the providers for storage, use of cloud-based applications, or viewing or listening to cloud-based media.

- Control of digital media, making DRM easy to enforce since your audio and video files will all be on their servers to be scanned, audited, and confiscated.

Even with the fluctuating prices for hard drives the cost to store media locally is lower than ever, and there are plenty of options for sharing your media over the web yourself due to the low cost of high speed Internet access.

Re:It's all about profit and control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897727)

You forgot the ability to collect data on what you watch/listen to/access and when and to sell that to others / use it to sell you more stuff.

Young New Slaves Will Not Care (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897295)

Future generations will not even know about the need for control. All their data will be in Google's servers. In future, all personal computing devices will be hobbled anyway.

Ky Niem Chuong Gia Re (-1, Offtopic)

longpham (2702037) | about 2 years ago | (#40897301)

Ky Niem Chuong Gia re []

You will be nothing but a tenant!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897311)

The cloud is not really a shift away from hard disks and CPUs, these must still store the data and supply the computing power.. but they won't be yours anymore.

Instead the cloud is a shift away from ownership, privacy and ultimate control over.your computing .. even to the point of managing how much CPU and disk you are entitled to.

That'ss really behind this scheme. Harddisks and CPU wilays cost money and you will be paying for them .. only you won't own them, renter. You will be a tenant.

The cloud doesn't force you to be a tenant (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#40897499)

Harddisks and CPU wilays cost money and you will be paying for them .. only you won't own them

Even if you choose to use the dynamic server provisioning facilities that define cloud computing, nothing stops you from buying your own servers and running your own software (free software, even!) for those services. (That's what "private cloud" systems are.)

Or even doing a "hybrid cloud" system where your main system is a private cloud system and you use a public cloud system to provide extra capacity to deal with processing spikes.

The cloud doesn't make you stop owning things. It adds more options, one of which is the option to run your own cloud. You have the option of remote hosting dependent on someone else, but you had that option before cloud computing, too.

The problem is (1)

joh (27088) | about 2 years ago | (#40897321)

that without something else that allows everyone to easily store, sync and backup their data "owning" your data is a mostly meaningless feature.

What we need is some kind of peer-to-peer cloud and syncing *protocol*, with distributed storage. Back in the good old days email and Usenet offered something like that.

But just requiring people to run their own servers will never work. Because 99% of people just lack the knowledge, motivation and time to implement and use anything like that. Not seeing this problem is idiotic.

is it still your data? (1)

CoderFool (1366191) | about 2 years ago | (#40897435)

How long before some court declares your data is in the public domain once it has left hardware that you own?? Then it will be datamined to death by advertisers, spammers, government agencies..... If you use cloud services even today, make sure you encrypt your own data and keep the keys, certificates, passphrases, or whatever you use to yourself. While I don't have anything to hide, I still don't want anyone digging through my stuff. Especially nameless, faceless ones at a remote location.

Re:is it still your data? (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#40897519)

And inadvertantly destroy every business model based around IP? They couldn't do it soon enough.

Controversial? Really? (1, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#40897511)

"monologist Mike Daisey's controversial two-hour expose of Apple's labor conditions in China."

Oh, my. Where to even start? First, where's the controversy? Who is against Apple's labor conditions in China? Nobody. Popular wisdom has workers jumping to their deaths in order to escape Apple's tyranny. Where is the opposition that this brave monologist is so bravely and controversially standing against?

Second, Apple doesn't even employ the workers in China. Foxconn does. If you think you can dictate terms to your Chinese contractor regarding worker conditions, you are dead wrong, mister. You can write a contract, you can inspect the factory, you can do anything you like. At the end of the day, it's the Chinese factory's decision regarding how they will conduct their own business. Foreigners dictating terms to Chinese which the Chinese will obey without exception...what's that called again? Oh, right...imperialism.

Thirdly, Foxconn's workers are well-paid and well-treated, by Chinese standards. Remember, China is a socialist state, and workers are represented by officially approved unions. The All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is a government-run organization that has been implementing aggressive unionization tactics aimed at foreign companies in China since the middle of 2006. Just think of how the US government intervened to keep the GM unions afloat and you'll get the right idea of how things work in China. The Labor Law of 2008 requires that any employee who completes a 1-year contract, upon renewal of that contract, be employed for life [] . How is Apple supposed to improve on lifetime employment, exactly? I'm not an Apple fanboi, I hate them as much as anyone who loves innovation and despises walled gardens, but jeez. How, exactly, should Apple dictate terms to Foxconn without recalling the bad old days of unequal treaties and foreign enclaves?

Fourthly, what does monologist Mike Daisey think should be done? Pay Chinese workers Western wages? This would invalidate the entire idea of moving production to China. It would render millions of Chinese people unemployable - in favor of Western people. What's that called again? Oh, right: jingoism. Or protectionism, take your pick. Either word is repugnant.

Re:Controversial? Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897693)

First, where's the controversy?
How about the fact that it was discovered that Mike Daisey made up pretty much everything in his 'two-hour expose' from whole cloth. None of his 'revelations' were true, and he didn't even meet the people he claimed to have interviewed, much less talk to them.
Oh, and the Foxconn workers who threatened to jump to their deaths as part of labor negotiatons? They worked on the X-Box lines.

True, except that Apple, unlike *most* major electronics 'manufacturers' *does* pressure Foxconn (and their other subcontractors) to improve conditions. This has included pay raises, as well as reduced hours (which many workers proceeded to complain about) when it was discovered that the factory was breaking regulations. (Regulations, I might add, which are *more* worker friendly than what we have here in the US! Seriously, ask someone sometime, about the legal limit for hours worked in a week in the US. I'll give you a hint. There is none for most occupations.)

Completely true.

He doesn't think *anything* should be done. Or at least he certainly doesn't think anyone should fact check his claims.

Re:Controversial? Really? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#40897799)

Wow. It's "jingoism" to suggest Chinese workers deserve the same consideration, protection, and compensation as westerners? Just, wow...

Saw this critique before somewhere... (-1, Troll)

Lundse (1036754) | about 2 years ago | (#40897535)

The other Steve is apparently about as relevant as Eben Moglen, minus a couple of years.

Of course the cloud is about controlling the data. How else is anyone going to make money off what is freely available?

Buried the lead (1)

Schnapple (262314) | about 2 years ago | (#40897587)

This story has buried the lead. All anyone's going to talk about is Woz this and Cloud that, when the real news should be that somehow people are continuing to pay money to go see Mike Daisey put on his one-man show that, despite coming across as if he's telling a true story about what he did, has in fact been proven to be largely false [] . It became quite the embarrassment for the radio show This American Life when they aired portions of it as being true after he lied to them about specifics of the story.

He's totally right (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 2 years ago | (#40897617)

Any thinking person is wrestling with this issue right now. Cloud computing is potentially a LOT more dangerous than it is beneficial. There's a ton of money being spent by the major players (Facebook, Google, Amazon AWS) and for at least one of these (Facebook) the path to profitability is not clear (and I recognize that they are making money today, but the ad revenue that they're pulling down may be related to hype in the advertiser's sector, not actual effectiveness. Advertisers may not like Facebook in a year). There was this kind of thought process, for example, on Facebook's part that all they needed was an enormous audience (check) and that somehow they'd be able to profit with their personal information for advertising. Now it's starting to come out in the press that Facebook's ads may not be effective and that there may be bots being used to increase click-through stats. So, if any of what the press is reporting on is true or if their profitability changes overnight, what are Facebook's options with their enormous collection of user data? All "ecosystem" vendors are in this situation in some form or other. What does Google have to gain with Gmail, Google Drive, and G+? All of your stuff is sitting on their servers - an infrustructure that ain't cheap. At least Amazon Web Services has kind of found a way to make an infrustructure worth paying for and kind of have an economic interest in protecting properly. When my free-usage year wraps up on AWS next year I will be happy to continue on with a paid subscription (about 15 dollars a month for a micro-instance). But there's always this hanging doubt that things can be going on that the user is not aware of, even in the best case scenario. Always assume that someone is looking at your information and keep your data on offline storage. Always.

Oblig XKCD (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897621)

We don't own squat (1, Insightful)

SlashDev (627697) | about 2 years ago | (#40897641)

I think Steve has been asleep for the past decade or so, here a few services that we spend 99% of our time on and don't own: Ebay Paypal Webmail Webdisk / Webstorage Photobucket et al YouTube Facebook, myspace et al Netflix We don't own squat...

Already Horrendous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897661)

A new CEO brought in to do the Bain thing to our company (outsource, lay everyone off, show temp false profit, sell company, reap commission) decided to start by moving all our custom built stuff based on FOSS to The Cloud. Our operating costs were impossible to beat, but it didn't matter to the guy. His response to concerns was "I'm sure google's servers are more secure and reliable than we could ever make ours." Two weeks later the news broke about the Chinese hackers getting into google. After losing a million bucks due a wide variety of inefficiencies and lost customers and assorted hassles, we wound up pulling all our stuff back off The Cloud. We don't see FailCEO around the office much anymore.

I have to wonder how much interest in The Cloud is being driven by the corporate scam thing that seems to be all the rage lately among executives (outsourcing, showing temporary false profits, selling, walking away from a flaming wreck after having personally enriched onself.)

Re:Already Horrendous (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 2 years ago | (#40897849)

Be thankful that these kinds of things are a LOT harder to do than they used to be. There are so many eyeballs on executive decision making these days that when someone tries to make a change that will personally benefit them and them alone that the repercussions for them are very public and dire. It didn't used to be this way even ten years ago (Enron), people would get away with this stuff left and right and put the worker out on the street. Thank goodness for progress.

Roll your own (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40897771)

The cloud is useful. The cloud is not the problem. Other people controlling and possibly owning your data is the problem.

I have a VPS for ~$15/mo. I use that to run webDAV and other 'cloud' services. Lots of applications support this, I can encrypt whatever I want (and no one else holds the keys), it functions as immediate backups (i.e. my stuff is offsite before regular backups run), and I can automate all kinds of stuff.

I don't *mind* cloud hosting and storage (3, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | about 2 years ago | (#40897827)

So long as it's trivial to sync to your own privately held computer infrastructure.

For storage, I love the concept of a provider keeping bits (that I have pre-gpged) for my reference. The problem is the trend seems to be more and more limited and convoluted storage capability in favor of more exploitive pricing and schemes (e.g. Amazon changing from a modest capacity to a pathetic song count on their cloud).

For compute, so long as you own the DNS name and all the data needed to reconstruct your presence elsewhere, it gives smaller businesses a chance to have a presence without a lot of up-frot cost. Too bad the trend is overwhelmingly fewer and fewer businesses making this benefit moot.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>