Link: Googles challenge in enterprise cloud

Post Alphabet, where any previous inhibitions about pursuing new hobbies have evaporated, it is even harder to imagine the “capital allocators” choosing to invest in thousands of enterprise sales and support people given alternatives involving life extension and/or space elevators. After all, won’t the robotics division eventually solve any problem that today requires humans?

The rest of the state of cloud is pretty good. It’s a regular “pulls no punches and punches everyone” type situation.

If you threw in some charts and numbers, you’d have an even fancier missive, but qualitatively: just Jim-dandy.

The Problem with PaaS Market-sizing

personal-791370_1920

Figuring out the market for PaaS has always been difficult. At the moment, I tend to estimate it at $20-25bn sometime in the future (5-10 years from now?) based on the model of converting the existing middleware and application development market. Sizing this market has been something of an annual bug-bear for me across my time at Dell doing cloud strategy, at 451 Research covering cloud, and now at Pivotal.

A bias against private PaaS

This number is contrast to numbers you usually see in the single digit billions from analysts. Most analysts think of PaaS only as public PaaS, tracking just Force.com, Heroku, and parts of AWS, Azure, and Google. This is mostly due, I think, to historical reasons: several years ago “private cloud” was seen as goofy and made-up, and I’ve found that many analysts still view it as such. Thus, their models started off being just public PaaS and have largely remained as so.

I was once a “public cloud bigot” myself, but having worked more closely with large organizations over the past five years, I now see that much of the spending on PaaS is on private PaaS. Indeed, if you look at the history of Pivotal Cloud Foundry, we didn’t start making major money until we gave customers what they wanted to buy: a private PaaS platform. The current product/market fit, then, PaaS for large organizations seems to be private PaaS

(Of course, I’d suggest a wording change: when you end-up running your own PaaS you actually end-up running your own cloud and, thus, end up with a cloud platform.)

How much do you have budgeted?

With this premise – that people want private PaaS – I then look at existing middleware and application development market-sizes. Recently, I’ve collected some figures for that:

  • IDC’s Application Development forecast puts the application development market (which includes ALM tools and platforms) at $24bn in 2015, growing to $30bn in 2019. The commentary notes that the influence of PaaS will drive much growth here.
  • Recently from Ovum: “Ovum forecasts the global spend on middleware software is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.8 percent between 2014 and 2019, amounting to $US22.8 billion by end of 2019.”
  • And there’s my old pull from a Goldman Sachs report that pulled from Gartner, where middleware is $24bn in 2015 (that’s from a Dec 2014 forecast).

When dealing with large numbers like this and so much speculation, I prefer ranges. Thus, the PaaS TAM I tent to use now-a-days is something like “it’s going after a $20-25bn market, you know, over the next 5 to 10 years.” That is, the pot of current money PaaS is looking to convert is somewhere in that range. That’s the amount of money organizations are currently willing to spend on this type of thing (middleware and application development) so it’s a good estimate of how much they’ll spend on a new type of this thing (PaaS) to help solve the same problems.

Things get slightly dicey depending on including databases, ALM tools, and the underlying virtualization and infrastructure software: some PaaSes include some, none, or all of these in their products. Databases are a huge market (~$40bn), as is virtualization (~$4.5bn). The other ancillary buckets are pretty small, relatively. I don’t think “PaaS” eats too much database, but probably some “virtualization.”

So, if you accept that PaaS is both public and private PaaS and that it’s going after the middleware and appdev market, it’s a lot more than a few billion dollars.

(Ironic-clipart from my favorite source, geralt.)

052: Besides getting drunk, what do you do at annual kick-offs? – Software Defined Talk

Summary

At the start of the year, companies love “the kick off.” We discuss how to best take advantage of these events, aside from drinking. Coté also reviews the Apple Watch, and we discuss a smattering of tech world news.

Listen above, subscribe to the feed, or download the MP3 directly.

With Brandon Whichard, Matt Ray, and Coté.

SPONSOR: Take our awesome, multi-cloud PaaS for a test-ride. Get two free months of Pivotal Web Services. Whether you want to deploy on-premises, in a dedicated public cloud, or just keep using our PaaS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry has everything you need for doing cloud-native applications. Go to cote.io/pivotal for the sign-up code!

Subscribe to this podcast: iTunes, RSS Feed

Show notes

Upside-down pineapple cake

  • If you like video, see this episodes’ video recording.
  • Oracle buys Austin-based StackEngine – DOCKER DOCKER DOCKER – Raised $4.5 million and sold for $1.3? 5ish people – I love the “I don’t know, it’s some nerd shit” tone of coverage here, e.g., “And then when the developer sends the app to the cloud, it sends it to a Docker container running on a cloud, and all that stuff just works, no troubleshooting.”
  • Meanwhile: Austin Docker Meetup – Coté on panel with some other folks. Much interest in the crowd (60-80 people for an Austin meetup!). Questions around security, the two standards group. See Coté’s industry data round-up, mostly from DataDog and New Relic, but a 451 cameo. Industry analysts have very little quantitative data on Docker/containers.
  • Joe’s Crab Shack on Town Lake – not too bad!
  • What’d you get for Christmas? Gift cards; impact drill; Apple Watch.
  • The Apple Watch review from Coté.
  • Things to Stop Talking About in 2016 – Unicorns, Wearables, Marissa Mayer, Sharing Economy, The Bubble

Bonus links not covered in show

Recommendations

Compliance & Audit for Cloud Natives

office-933306_1920

Questions around audit and compliance always come up in discussions about improving software, and certainly when it comes to introducing things like continuous delivery, DevOps, and esp. something as big and different as Pivotal Cloud Foundry. To that end, I wrote up a way to approach those issues, along with a few tips for dealing with compliance and audit for my FierceDevOps column last month.

The onerous steps auditors want you to do were usually put in there for good reason, but, as I put it:

Unfortunately, the way that three-ring binder wielding ninjas and IT staff battle it out over these and other compliance check-lists often loses sight of the original, good intentions. Instead, it infects everyone with a bad case of table-flipping madness. Thanks to cloud technologies and the empathy over table-flipping approaches in DevOps, we’ve been finding ways to get over compliance hurdles and even, in some cases, make compliance projects easier and better.

There’s a summary on the Pivotal blog, and/or you can check out the full piece.

(Binders picture from tookapic)

The media doesn’t know what they’re talking about w/r/t Yahoo, a study in i-banker rhetoric

The notion that some in the media – who usually have no specific knowledge about Yahoo – have recklessly put forward that Yahoo is “unfixable” and that it should be simply “chopped up” and handed over for nothing to private equity or strategies is insulting to all long-term public shareholders.

This presentation is an example of many things we discuss on Software Defined Talk around large, struggling companies and the way they’re covered. Among other rhetorical highlights:

  • Check out how they make their case
  • Use visuals and charts
  • The informal nature of their language, e.g., they use the word “stuff” frequently
  • Their citations, e.g., citing themselves (I always love a good “Source: Me!”) and citing “Google Images”

These things, in my view, are neither good or bad: I’m more interested in the study of the rhetoric which I find fascinating for investment banker documents/presentations like this.

Not only that, it’s a classic “Word doc accidentally printed in landscape.” The investment community can’t help themselves.

As another note, no need to be such a parenthetical dick, below, to prove the point of a poor M&A history, just let the outcomes speak for themselves, not the people who do them.

img_4051

They actually do a better job in the very next slide, but that kind to pettiness doesn’t really help their argument. (Their argument is: she’s acquiring her friends.)

This is a type of reverse halo effect: we assume that tree standing goofiness has something to do with the business: an ad hominem attack. But, I think most billionaires probably have picture of themselves in trees, wearing those silly glove shoes, roasting their own coffee, only eating meat they kill themselves, or any number of other affectations that have nothing to do with profit-making, good or bad.