Microsoft's Azure Cloud Service Is Becoming More Popular Than Amazon's AWS At Big Companies (cnbc.com) 82
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has been focusing the company on cloud services -- and CNBC reports on the results:
A Goldman Sachs survey of technology executives at large companies last month showed that Microsoft remained the most popular supplier of public cloud services, even as Amazon leads the market overall in terms of revenue.
Goldman Sachs based its latest findings on an information-technology spending survey of 100 IT executives at Global 2000 companies. It performs the survey each June and December. The latest survey showed that 56 executives are using Azure for cloud infrastructure, versus 48 using AWS. Across cloud infrastructure and platform as a service put together, Microsoft's lead has been increasing since December 2017, according to the analysts. Additionally, more respondents expect their companies to be using Azure than any other cloud in three years, the analysts wrote...
The results lead the analysts to conclude that about 23% of IT workloads are now on public clouds, up from 19% in June, and they expect the percentage to reach 43% in three years. That leaves plenty of room for growth for other contenders, like Google, for example...
About 91% of analysts surveyed by FactSet have the equivalent of buy ratings on Microsoft stock, including Goldman Sachs.
In the original submission Slashdot reader soldersold wonders if it's pre-existing business relationships with Microsoft (plus a workforce that's already been trained and certified in their technologies).
Another caveat: The survey only included large companies. It'd be interesting to hear from Slashdot readers working in the cloud about whether they're using AWS or Azure?
A Goldman Sachs survey of technology executives at large companies last month showed that Microsoft remained the most popular supplier of public cloud services, even as Amazon leads the market overall in terms of revenue.
Goldman Sachs based its latest findings on an information-technology spending survey of 100 IT executives at Global 2000 companies. It performs the survey each June and December. The latest survey showed that 56 executives are using Azure for cloud infrastructure, versus 48 using AWS. Across cloud infrastructure and platform as a service put together, Microsoft's lead has been increasing since December 2017, according to the analysts. Additionally, more respondents expect their companies to be using Azure than any other cloud in three years, the analysts wrote...
The results lead the analysts to conclude that about 23% of IT workloads are now on public clouds, up from 19% in June, and they expect the percentage to reach 43% in three years. That leaves plenty of room for growth for other contenders, like Google, for example...
About 91% of analysts surveyed by FactSet have the equivalent of buy ratings on Microsoft stock, including Goldman Sachs.
In the original submission Slashdot reader soldersold wonders if it's pre-existing business relationships with Microsoft (plus a workforce that's already been trained and certified in their technologies).
Another caveat: The survey only included large companies. It'd be interesting to hear from Slashdot readers working in the cloud about whether they're using AWS or Azure?
What would also be interesting to know (Score:3)
What is the percentage of Microsoft Servers vs Linux Servers on Azure?
Last time it was in the news, (Score:3, Informative)
MS had just gone over 50% Linux.
Well... "Linux" ... in the EEE sense, I'm sure.
Re:Last time it was in the news, (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... "Linux" ... in the EEE sense, I'm sure.
Why would MS try to EEE half their market share? That makes no sense what so ever. Linux is not at all a threat to them, anywhere. Linux has no complete end to end enterprise suite (Exchange, Windows Servers, O365 and the 100s of apps that make it up). Linux has despite everything no market share on the desktop. And where Linux has marketshare that is relevant, MS turned it into an actual profit centre for them (Azure).
Re: (Score:2)
'And where Linux has market share that is relevant, MS turned it into an actual profit centre for them (Azure).'
Spot on. But I believe it's just the root of their plan to completely eliminate distribution of an OS that doesn't require [and actually execute] locally. Then it truly becomes so much easier for them to require payment for 'Windows as a service'.
Where the majority of their income had come from service contracts, they've battled to control DRM on users machines and pretty much lost. Minimal execu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: What would also be interesting to know (Score:1)
Re: What would also be interesting to know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then there's those who sell extensions to legacy stuff and that's what you're doing.
most stuff going into azure on windows is being transferred from on-premises servers.
also as far as "getting things done" that's not really about if you're going to be running it on linux or windows at all, especially not in 2020.
if you're "allergic" to either, then that's a minus on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. But I think it's more likely that they wanted something they could offer even to users of AWS. What are the commercial database options on AWS - and are they more expensive than SQLServer? If so, then maybe Microsoft sees SQLServer on Linux as a way to wean AWS users over to Azure - and perhaps even Windows.
To me, it makes more sense to use as much Open Source stuff as possible - whether in-house, on AWS or Azure. Having finally escaped single-vendor lock-in, why would anybody want to risk goin
Re: (Score:2)
When you use Azure Database for PostgreSQL and Database for MySQL they both run on Windows Server directly, just like MS SQL Server does.
There are few, if any, physical hosts not running Windows Server at Azure.
Re: (Score:2)
So all the Linux on Azure is VM's? I suppose they're all VM's on AWS too, except that the host system is Linux there, huh?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft cloud architects officially use and recommend Linux servers as default and advise against Windows Server unless you have a clear reason like running legacy software.
Or a debilitating amount of excess cash that needs to be disposed of in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what will blow your mind? The physical hosts at Azure all running Windows Server with the redesigned Hyper-V that was developed from their Azure operations experience.
That same Hyper-V was back-ported to retail Windows Server a couple years ago but still without accelerated graphics, though, so no point for me to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
The stats they reluctantly quoted us (in confidence, ha ha ha!) was 60%, which probably really means ~75%.
I wouldn't trust Gold Man-Sacks ... (Score:2)
... if they told me the sun was round.
Besides .... "cloud" ... *rolls eyes* ... can somebody please smite them with the botch of WhatWG, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof they can not be healed?
AWS Docs are awful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft has another thing going for it, it is a pure-tech play unlike Google and AWS.
AWS is considered a major retailer and competitor to retailers so other retailers don't want to give them business.
Google is a data company and trying to move into other areas. So they are considered a competitor to many companies that play in the data space.
Microsoft (and to a lesser extent Oracle) are not competitors to these industries, they are service providers only. So Microsoft Azure is a good choice for that rea
Re: AWS EC2 wins over Azure (WTF?) (Score:4, Interesting)
| AWS EC2 wins over AZURE for now
What does that even mean?
You are comparing apples and... apple crates....
AWS and Azure are brands of cloud service offerings from Amazon (AWS) and Microsoft (Azure).
EC2 is a particular kind of service offering (virtual servers) offered under the AWS brand. One that is billed according to hours of use for a particular size (memory, compute capacity) at some hourly rate.
There is much more to cloud computing that virtual servers. If you think of AWS as "EC2", then you are living in the past.
- Container hosting - Kubernetes, etc. usually billed similarly to virtual servers.
- bare-metal hosting - again billed in a similar manner.
- PaaS (Platform as a Service) relieves the developer/operator from the burden of provisioning real or virtual servers, or creating containers. Still a similar billing model though - you are paying by the hour for instances whether they are needed or not. Think Heroku as the OG.
- SaaS (software as a service) which typically has a completely different billing model. For example, Amazon Aurora, or IBM "Databases for..." (e.g. Databases for PostgreSQL) offerings, which are typically billed according to metrics appropriate for the particular service. e.g. for databases, according to storage capacity, memory, and compute capacity, but without any per-hour component. Lots of ancillary services, such as e.g. unified logging across services.
- PaaS (Platform as a Service) relieves the developer/operator from the burden of provisioning real or virtual servers, or creating containers. Still a similar billing model though - you are paying by the hour for instances whether they are needed or not. Think Heroku as the OG.
- FaaS (functions as a service also AKA "serverless") - one-shot functions that "pop up" as needed, e.g. AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Functions, Azure Functions, OpenWhisk. Yet another completely different billing model, you typically pay per millisecond of actual execution time. Unlike virtual server, container, bare metal, you are not paying for availability when not needed. Instead of playing scaling games increasing/decreasing number of server according to load, scaling is managed for you. In reality, some number of servers are in reality kept "hot", but you are not paying for that. In many/most of these offerings, the function instance locations are also managed transparently.
Personally, I THINK Different, and have cast my lot with the insanely unpopular (with the tech press) IBM Cloud. IMO, the press and securities analysts mis-categorize IBM cloud revenues, consistently placing ranking them well below actual use. IBM is heavily into "hybrid cloud" (both on and off premises). Azure is making inroads into that same mindset, and AWS has done little.
FWIW, if you are heavily depending on relational databases (which do not scale out - at least not well or easily, so generally must be scaled up) IBM currently gives you the widest range of possibilities for managed DB. They've recently introduced HyperProtect DBaaS, which runs on highly secure IBM hardware (Z-series running Linux One).
This hardware is not susceptible to the kinds of side-channel attacks that have plagued Intel hardware, has "pervasive encryption" (instructions are encrypted both at rest and in use, decrypted only at the point of use) has an insane MTBF, etc. etc. Sure, it's at a higher price point. But you can start with Databases for... running on Intel hardware, and later transition to HyperProtect DBaaS.
IBM has also started offering virtual servers on Z-series hardware running LinuxOne.
Let's see when/if Amazon and Microsoft starts installing some IBM hardware on their clouds. I'd bet Microsoft jumps first. They've demonstrated they are not afraid of Linux - e.g. they are unconcerned about cannibalizing their own OS business. I see no good reason why they would not take the leap from the security-burdened Intel processors that have turned out to be a nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM is heavily into "hybrid cloud" (both on and off premises). Azure is making inroads into that same mindset, and AWS has done little.
Apart from Direct Connect [amazon.com], Outposts [amazon.com], and Directory Services [amazon.com], you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Azure preferred because it is not Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Azure preferred because it is not Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what we've heard a fair amount, as well. Any customer even remotely related to retailing or distribution sees Amazon as the enemy, or at least as a potential competitor, and they don't want to give them the business. It's not pro-Azure as much as it is anti-Amazon from what I can see.
Re: (Score:3)
Big customers that our company has talked to prefer Azure because it is not AWS and it is good enough. They consider Amazon a competitor, and don't want to shovel money their way.
I came here to write exactly this. Amazon should sell off AWS from the rest of the company. Otherwise, they're going to lose business due to that connection.
Microsoft pitches AWS + Azure + maybe Google (Score:3)
I spent a few days in the Microsoft building getting training / sales pitch for Azure. One thing they kept mentioning is that they weren't saying we should switch away from AWS. They suggested ADDING Azure to the mix and using it where it makes sense. Then they have a lot of tooling that, once you start using it, makes you want to put more and more things on Azure. That was a good sales pitch, if only because it was unexpected.
I chuckled at the snack they served - Microsoft gave me an Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
oddly enough i went to apple's wwdc and was served a flaccid micropenis! what a coincidence!
AD (Score:1)
Another caveat: The survey only included large companies. It'd be interesting to hear from Slashdot readers working in the cloud about whether they're using AWS or Azure?
Microsoft has been hell bent on discontinuing the entire concept of locally hosted exchange, office installs, and to a degree locally managed OS deployments.
For a smaller company, faced with A) moving to the cloud (aws), and B) being moved to the cloud (azure), it is obvious and clear this is a major shift that will have an effect no matter what option you choose.
This marks the time this extra work is unavoidable and must be spent changing.
To a larger company already entrenched, this could very well result
and Azure AD is NOT AD on Azure. Not even close (Score:3)
To extend what you said:
In the days of training I had with Microsoft's cloud people, they kept bringing up one point - "Azure AD" does NOT replace Active Directory. The naming is misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
They're working on it. There's AD as a service backed by Azure AD now (Azure Active Directory Domain Services - a thoroughly Microsoft name) - it has some limitations but it's mostly AD compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been two AD offerings for years now. One is the default AD that manages users logging in to Azure itself. The second is the real Active Directory which can either run standalone, as a cloud cluster, or as part of your on-premises hybrid cloud AD cluster.
Been like this for years. Not sure what you mean. The docs are pretty clear about this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
MS clearly wants to move away from local on-premise software.
Exchange is now expressly recommended for large companies only.
They don't really want third party hosting providers either - SPLA is being neglected and priced at sometimes double the equivalent O365 licensing, with O365/CSP based licenses only allowed to be hosted on dedicated hardware (expensive) or in "Qualified Multi-tenant Hosting" partner datacenters - an expensive and hard-to-get-into club. Volume licensing rights are being, little by l
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways to get around this with AWS, but you need to talk to someone from Amazon. I'd imagine the reason is that these companies in the survey aren't off of Windows and thus are kind of s
Azure isn't necessarily better (Score:3)
In my company we're getting a lot of pressure to move to Azure because our customers don't want Amazon anywhere near their data, let alone supporting them in someway. Azure isn't bad - but AWS still has the lead for now especially in its use (I find Google's implementation to be overly complex to manage as well)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To contrast, my client (in broadcast and IP TV) is on AWS because Amazon are the only cloud provider to really offer a whole load of video tools. It's a curious specialism, but I guess flows from Amazon having Prime Video. I guess also video/TV folks aren't so bothered about retail and distribution.
If you're into video, you're on AWS. You might well use someone else for your CDN, or your plain-old-VMs or whatever, but the bulk of moving and manipulating video will be on AWS. I don't know first hand, but my
How is this surprising? (Score:3)
Microsoft has 30+ years of doing business with these places. They run the desktops, their email, databases and internal web sites at most of these companies. It's a much easier sell for them. It's practically a no brainer. It may have started at another company, the but the reality is that Nobody ever got fired buying Microsoft.
Only two examples for me... (Score:3)
Since 2012 or so, much of my work has consisted of moving applications from rank-and-stack datacenter environments into "the cloud". This has been pretty much entirely in small to medium sized companies, or small to medium sized business units after said companies got bought by larger outfits. I've only seen the decision NOT be AWS twice; and only one of those at the company I worked for.
The first was when my employer was pursuing Walmart as a potential customer. For internal ego and political reasons that had exactly zero to do with the merits of the platform, Walmart at the time had an "AWS is verboten! Thou shalt not imbalance our humors by tainting our apps or data with thy essence of AWS in any respect." policy. We eventually rolled a pilot environment for them that was a hybrid of old physical VMware infra in one of our legacy datacenters, plus GCP stats and analytics services secondary to the app. We didn't land the contract anyway, and all that got torn down and binned.
The second was a colleague, who'd left one of my companies (AWS shop) to go work for a game studio. They WERE in the process of moving their online systems into AWS when he moved. But the House of Gates rolled in with a bunch of gigantic rebates that made Azure nearly free for them for a couple of years. This was in exchange for cross-promotional marketing. And if you saw their ads, "Powered by Azure" was prominent. So they dropped AWS, and re-did everything to launch into Azure; making my friend, an AWS & Linux guy, miserable and eventually leave the company. The joke was on them though, MS eventually expired the Azure discounts. The additional cost gutted their profits, and the studio eventually went under and the IP was acquired by EA... which was probably MS's ultimate and ulterior motive in the first place.
Then there are the occasional Heroku (Which is really just AWS on the backend.) shops; and the occasional outfit that has so much in-house VMware expertise that they just will... not... migrate. But what I've *NOT* seen; is anyone consciously look at Azure vs AWS, from a POV of purely evaluating the technical merits and without political meddling by the suits, and willingly choose Azure over AWS on those grounds. Even going GCP is generally a result of non-technical corporate shenanigans; Azure doubly so.
Re:Only two examples for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies moving their essential services to someone else's server is the most shocking example of willing mass suicide the world has ever seen. Eventually, the cloud providers will own the business of all of their customers, and the press will be full of stories about how unforeseeable that was.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, the cloud providers will own the business of all of their customers,
Just like power utilities own everything?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The cloud provider = "power companies" argument is horseshit. First and foremost, the "power companies" are heavily regulated. Secondly, some "power companies" produce electricity, but just make it and send it along the path.
Power companies were unregulated early in their history and quite often owned everything related to power delivery.
Cloud computing is really about 10 years old, it's a new industry. Over time it'll standardize and settle.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies moving their essential services to someone else's server is the most shocking example of willing mass suicide the world has ever seen. Eventually, the cloud providers will own the business of all of their customers, and the press will be full of stories about how unforeseeable that was.
I'm not really following your line of thought. What are you implying would happen?
That a cloud provider will deliberately hold a hosted service hostage? Regardless of the legal problems they would get into, that would kill their business model. Also, cloud networking was not the start of off-site server hosting by third parties. Wouldn't problems like this have already arisen in that space years ago if it were going to happen?
Are you worried that the services won't be secure from discreet hacking by eit
Microsoft the complete solutions provider (Score:2)
These places are Microsoft shops. They run Windows on desktop, usually Outlook/Exchange for email, Skype / Teams for internal communication, everything is magically integrated with Onedrive, and O365. It stands to reason that they would then use Azure as a Cloud provider.
Re: (Score:2)
They might be *nix shops on the backend, but many of them also have a subset users running Windows 10 with Office so it's easier to go with Azure/O365 because of the licensing integration. It's all the little bits that add up, that tip the balance away from a generic *nix based PAAS/SAAS hosting service (and there's a LOT these days) to Azure
Either/or is a sign of cloud immaturity (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
discounting azure? (Score:1)
Last place I worked was all AWS, but MS approached the CEO with substantial discounts on Azure. Suddenly the company was switching without much thought on the cost of moving everything. Those of us in IT weren't involved in the decision.
Not sure how often that is happening, but I suspect it is elsewhere as well.
They are using Microsoft Office 365 (Score:2)
I guarantee you that everyone surveyed is probably using Microsoft's Office 365 and that's why Microsoft is counted as the top.
Because the average Fortune 500 executive has no idea what's being used in the background, only whats running on their computers.
Bullshit (Score:2)
I repeat, bullshit.
Azure has a loooooooooooong way to go to catch up to AWS, and anyone contemplating a move to the cloud knows it (unless they're imbeciles who've done zero research).
I've worked with all 3 , and AWS is far and away the most feature-rich, the most logical to develop on, and the easiest to provision and manage. They're not even close. If you want a particular feature, chances are that AWS has it.
The current state of Azure is that Microsoft is so far behind and so desperate to catch up that
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked with all 3 , and AWS is far and away the most feature-rich, the most logical to develop on, and the easiest to provision and manage
I've actually found myself, coming from a systems and networking admin background, that Azure makes more sense to me than AWS in terms of the models it uses and the flow. I can see how AWS would make more sense from a developer perspective, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Missed the point (Score:1)
Not if amazon is your competitor (Score:1)
More cloud stats (Score:1)
Where I work we use both... (Score:2)
We are big enough that we don't want to be tied to one vendor, so we basically use whatever fits the need best. I know we have products in IBM, Azure, and AWS.
Our business is such that we can't afford to put all of our eggs into one basket. We do lots of everything.
Most I speak with are Azure (Score:2)
AWS is one two steps in front of AZURE (Score:1)
Poor Google (Score:2)
Looks like they are now officially out of the running.
Maybe buy Digital Ocean to try and pump up their market share.