Amazon Web Services abstraction of SSD in the cloud

GigaOm's Derek Harris has a phttp://gigaom.com/cloud/amazons-dynamodb-shows-hardware-as-mean-to-an-end/ost on AWS new Dynamo service.

Amazon’s DynamoDB shows hardware as means to an end

By  Jan. 18, 2012, 11:55am PT No Comments

Somewhat lost in the greater story of Amazon Web Services’ new DynamoDB NoSQL database is that the new service runs atop a solid-state storage system. However, by abstracting those SSDs underneath a higher-level application service, AWS has once again demonstrated its cloud wisdom by illustrating how new hardware presents greater opportunities than Infrastructure-as-a-Service alone.

AWS doing solid-state drives is a big deal in the world of cloud computing, where users have been wondering for years when the company might start offering SSDs as a service. Other cloud providers already offer bare SSDs as a service, and more certainly are thinking about it with the advent of companies such as SolidFire that are specifically targeting cloud providers with solid-state arrays. The idea is that they’ll be necessary to run I/O-intensive applications such as databases and ERP, which many large organizations consider mission-critical but which many cloud providers aren’t yet equipped to handle.

I speculated on the arrival of SSD to AWS 2 years ago.

When will solid state memory server be an option in AWS instances?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2010 AT 12:47AM
modifyremoveorganizepost follow up

I was having another stimulating conversation in silicon valley last night, and one of the ideas that made sense is for solid state memory servers to be part of the cloud computing option.  It’s just a matter of time.  Amazon has their current instance offerings with a division of performance and memory.

It took longer than I thought, but SSD has arrived to the AWS and I am sure it will be a standard expectation for high data IO services.

Comparing Kindle Fire vs. iPad 2 is flawed without accounting for business models

There are many comparisons between the Kindle Fire and iPad 2 as a tablet.  With top issues like no camera, microphone, screen size, and lack of 3G.


Kindle Fire Review: 5 Things Amazon's New Tablet Is Missing

ByRICK ARISTOTLE MUNARRIZ, THE MOTLEY FOOLPosted 12:15PM 11/22/11Technology,Google,Apple,Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble


Kindle Fire Review: 5 Things Amazon's New Tablet Is MissingAs early adopters crack open their Kindle Fires this month, the rest of the country is watching. Is Amazon.com's (AMZN) new $199 gadget as good as the $499 iPad 2 or the $249 Nook Tablet?

After playing around with the Kindle Fire for a couple of days, I have no problem recommending it as a quality entry-level tablet. Money's tight this holiday shopping season, and if junior can be talked out of an iPad and into a Kindle Fire, then we're talking about a few extra bills that can be paid.

Analysis has the part cost of the $199 Kindle Fire to be $201.70.

Amazon Kindle Fire Costs $201.70 to Manufacture
November 18, 2011

Amazon’s Kindle Fire media tablet carries a BOM cost of $185.60, according to preliminary findings from the IHS iSuppli Teardown Analysis Service. When manufacturing services expenses are added, the cost increases to $201.70, as shown in the table below.

Amazon Kindle Fire BOM

This is slightly lower than the IHS virtual estimate of the Kindle’s cost issued in September of a BOM amounting to $191.65, and a total of $209.63, when factoring in the manufacturing and the margin expenses.

ISupply say the iPad2 cost $326.

iPad 2 Carries Bill of Materials of $326.60, IHS iSuppli Teardown Analysis Shows
March 13, 2011
With the second-generation iPad, Apple Inc. has held the line on the bill of materials (BOM), maintaining virtually the same costs as the first version of the device, an IHS iSuppli teardown analysis of the product has revealed. The 32GB NAND flash memory version of the iPad 2 equipped the with Global System for Mobile Communications/high-speed packet access (GSM/HSPA) air standard carries a BOM of $326.60. The 32GB version equipped with the code division multiple access (CDMA) air standard carries a BOM of $323.25. The compares with $320 for the first-generation 32GB 3G iPad, based on pricing from April 2010.

You could go on making the comparison on what the Kindle Fire should cost with the missing iPad2 features, but what is consistently missing is accounting for the business models of Amazon vs. Apple.  Amazon is selling its device at below or close to cost.  Apple is making a profit on the devices.  If Apple adds features it thinks about its margin on the device.  If Amazon adds cost to the device, they need to eat the cost or raise the price.  Why would they increase the price/cost unless they see more revenue coming from Amazon.com?
The goal of Amazon is to ship a device that it makes money on.  Not necessarily the device itself, but from the goods bought.  Look at the first generation kindle.  It cost $399.  Do you think that was cost?  maybe, but highly unlikely.  What amazon.com figured out is how much it makes on kindle books.
Apple sells Apps.  Amazon sells Apps.  Both sell videos.  Both sell books.
Does adding a camera, microphone, and 3G help amazon.com sell more apps, books, and videos?
What amazon has bunches of people thinking about and creating the kindle roadmap is what makes more money for amazon.com.  You know Bezos would be ruthless with this focus and drill into any feature that does not have a clear benefit to amazon.com.
Hope this help you look at the kindle fire in a different way.  writing this down helped me more clearly articulate this view.

Amazon Prime vs. Netflix Streaming Video Business Models

I have been using Netflix for years and we have all seen the train wreck from its decisions to modify its business model.  But, did Netflix really modify its business model or just try to change its pricing?

NewImage

I have been a loyal Amazon Prime subscriber as well.  I have a Kindle Fire so now it is much easier to watch Amazon Prime free streaming videos.  One the things that just hit me is the different business model for Amazon Prime than Netflix.

NewImage

With Netflix you pay for streaming and you get a bunch of free videos.  If you want videos not included in the free streaming you put a request in for the DVD.  So Netflix wants you subscribe to both streaming and DVD delivery.

Amazon Prime you get free videos. You find free videos, and when you don't see what you want there are a wide choice of daily rentals $.99 - $4.99 a day to watch a video.  If you know you like a video you can choose to buy the streaming content or buy the DVD.

Amazon is using streaming video to keep the eyeballs coming back to rent or buy content, operating like a retail operation.  Amazon Prime video is keeping the users coming back on a regular basis and trying to up sell the users.  There is a much bigger upside for Amazon Prime, than Netflix.  A fanatical Netflix user will choose the 5 DVD rental option with blu-ray,  but that same fanatic will incur a high monthly cost for postage, handling, and content.  A fanatical Amazon Prime user will rent and buy videos and almost certainly buy many more things on Amazon Prime's store.  The upside revenue for Amazon is much higher than Netflix.

And the beauty is Amazon Web Services is making money from Netflix operations as well.

Think of these business models as changing things were data centers are at the core of a strategy.  Streaming is also a much greener strategy than physical media.  How DVDs do you have sitting around your house?  Don't you wish they were all in the cloud on demand?

 

Bechtolsheim talks data centers, Cloud/AWS, and Open Compute

Andy Bechtolstheim presented at GigaOm and discussed a bunch of cool topics for the data center crowd.  I am going to cheat and refer to Barb Darrow's notes as I was sitting next to her during the presentation and why type when I can copy the good stuff. :-)  I saw Andy a few weeks ago in NYC at the Open Compute and was curious what he would say at GigaOm Roadmap.

Bechtolsheim: AWS, open source rewrite rules for startups

By  Nov. 10, 2011, 4:01pm PT No Comments

Arista's Andy Bechtolsheim at GigaOM RoadMap 2011Today’s tech entrepreneurs would be out of their minds to build out their own data centers rather than renting capacity from Amazon or another low-cost provider.

That wasn’t a direct quote, but it’s pretty much the takeaway from Andy Bechtolsheim, the co-founder of Arista Networks(and also of Sun

 

 

 

 

 

Andy made the point people would be nuts to build their own data centers.

A company might build out its own infrastructure only if it’s raised a lot of venture capital, he said. But it needs to be a lot. And even then, maybe AWS is a better way. “Netflix  … uses Amazon for infrastructure. Here’s the leading, largest company in a field deciding it’s cheaper and more efficient to use a competitor for infrastructure rather than building its own.”

Andy mentioned the Open Compute Project.

Bechtolsheim is also on the board of the new Open Compute Foundation, formed by Facebook to propagate specs for standard, energy-efficient data center infrastructure. OCF hopes to bring open-source innovation that so improved software tools into the hardware realm.

For those brave souls wanting to build data centers, the OCF blueprint could help. But, Bechtolsheim said, that’s for truly big companies that need to do huge webscale computing, not for startups.

Bottom Line.

For nearly every entrepreneur weighing a tech startup, it’s better to rent than to buy or build.

The full presentation is here.

Watch live streaming video from gigaomroadmap at livestream.com