Oracle all over that public kubernetes service.
Further on the quest to figure out what a “cloud-native enterprise architect” is:
What’s the “business” side of enterprise architecture? And how does EA’ing start mapping to DevOps, cloud-native, and all the new stuff? In part one of this discussion, I talk with Matt Walburn about how EA’s fit into The Business.
Check out the full shows notes, and be sure the subscribe!
Most DevOps people seem to think Enterprise Architects are on annoying uncle at Thanksgiving status. I’m not sure that’s exactly the case, but what an EA can do in a cloud-native organization isn’t exactly too well known and documented yet. This week Richard Seroter and I discuss the idea of a cloud-native architect.
Turns out of course it’s not just Developer Time To Suck that is shrinking. Operations is heading the same way. Folks at Pivotal are saying that operating systems don’t matter, as we’ve moved further up the stack. Cloud Native is a proxy for saying much the same thing. But then, something is being written right now that will supplant Kubernetes. If we’re not running our own environments in house, operations disposability become increasingly realistic. Cattle not pets, for everything.
New types of software and delivery mechanisms (SaaS, mobile) mean new problems and scale:
“We were so used to dealing with tens of servers and suddenly it was hundreds and thousands of servers,” which in turn created more work for the development teams.
“The digital expansion of business equals more work and firefighting,” Cox said.
Less time spent doing dumb-shit:
employees used to spend the eight hours of the park closed every night, manually updating each server. Now only one person can update the whole fleet in 30 minutes.
Some guiding principals and management challenges:
Cox said that leading a change of this order of magnitude involved three crucial ingredients:
1. Collaboration: break down silos, mutual objectives.
2. Curiosity: keep experimenting.
3. Courage: candor, challenge, no blaming or witch-hunting.
But these can come with its own leadership challenges, including:
• The politics of command and control.
• How new leadership can take a company in a new direction.
• The blame bias of who versus what.
And, some good motivation:
We keep moving forward, opening up new doors, doing more things because we’re curious.
As part of CoreOS’s conference this week, 451 put out a sponsored study on container orchestration. It’s been much cited and is free, so it’s worth taking a look. Here’s my highlights and notes:
- Leadgen yourself to CoreOS get a copy of the report.
- This report is really more of a “container orchestration usage” report than much about “hybrid cloud.”
- “We surveyed 201 enterprise IT decision-makers in April and May 2017. This was not a survey of developers; rather, we received responses from those in C-level and director-level positions, including CISO, CTO, CIO, director of IT, IT Ops and DevOps, and VPs and managers of IT.”
- All from the US
- “All of our survey respondents came from organizations using application containers, and all were familiar with their organization’s use of containers.” – This survey, then, tells you what people who’re already using containers are doing, not what the entire market is thinking and planning on.
- “A significant slice of the survey respondents represented large enterprises.”
- Organizations are hoping to use containers for “[a] ‘leapfrog’ effect, whereby containers are viewed as a way to skip adoption of other technologies, was tested, and a majority of respondents think Kubernetes and other container management and orchestration software is sufficient to replace both private clouds and PaaS.”
- Obviously I’m biased, being at Pivotal, but the question here is “to do what?” As we like to say around here, you’re going to end-up with a platform. People need a “platform” on-top of that raw IaaS, and as things like Icito show (not to mention Pivotal’s ongoing momentum), the lower levels aren’t cutting the mustard.
- There’s an ongoing semantic argument about what “PaaS” means to be mindful of, as well: in contexts like these, the term is often taken to mean “that old stuff, before, like 2009.” At the very least, as with Gartner’s PaaS Magic Quadrant, the phrase often means means “only in the public cloud.” Again, the point is: if you’re developing and running software you need an application development, middleware, and services platform. Call it whatever you like, but make sure you have it. It’s highly likely that these “whatever you want to call ‘PaaS’ PaaSes” will run on-top of and with container orchestration layers, for example, as Cloud Foundry does and is doing.
- That said, it’s not uncommon for me to encounter people in organizations who really do have a “just the containers, and maybe some kubernates” mind-set in the planning phase of their cloud-native stuff. Of course, they frequently end-up needing more.
- Back to the survey: keeping in mind that all respondents were already using containers (or at least committed to doing so, I think), ~27% had “initial” production container use, ~25% of respondents had “broad” containers in production. So, if you were being happy-path, you’d say “over half of respondents have containers in production.”
- In a broader survey (where, presumably, not every enterprise was already using containers), of 300+ enterprises, production container use was: 19% in initial production, 8% were in broad production implementation.
- Nonetheless, 451 has been tracking steady, high growth in container usage for the past few years, putting the container market at $2.7B by 2020 and $1.1bn in 2017.
- As the report says, it’s more interesting to see what benefits users actually find once they’re using the technology. Their original desires are often just puppy-love notions after actual usage:
- Interesting note on lock-in: “Given that avoiding vendor lock-in is generally a priority for organizations, it might seem surprising that it was not ranked higher as an advantage since much of the container software used today is open source… However, our respondents for this study were users of containers, and may have assumed that the technology would be open source and, thus, lock-in less of a concern.” (There’s a whole separate report from Gartner on lock-in that I’ll take a look at, and, of course, some 140 character level analysis.)
- On marketshare, rated by usage, not revenue:
- On that note, it’s easy to misread the widely quoted finding of “[n]early three-quarters (71 percent) of respondents indicated they are using Kubernetes” as meaning only Kubernetes. Actually, people are using many of them at once. The report clarifies this: “The fact that almost 75% of organizations reported using Kubernetes while the same group also reported significant use of other container management and orchestration software is evidence of a mixed market.”
As one last piece of context, one of the more recent Gartner surveys for container usage puts usage at around 18%, with 4% of that being “significant production use”:
Of course, looks at more specialized slices of the market find higher usage.
This early in the container market, it’s good to pay close attention to surveys because the sample size will be small, selective, and most people will only have used containers for a short while. But, there’s good stuff in this survey, it’s definitely worth looking at and using.
There’s some good “how do I actually get my organization do all this unicorn stuff” comments in this interview with DreamWorks Animation’s Doug Sherman.
Here’s one sample bit on winning people over to microservices. Instead of going into the lab for six months to work on a tool that they think will be useful, they do a lot more user-driven work upfront and then do (it sounds like) weekly small batches to keep the users apprised of the tools and, you’d guess, give continuous feedback:
You have to understand what people want to do in their domain. In the past, Ive gotten it wrong. Ill come up with an idea I think is sound I think its the coolest thing ever and Ill work six months in isolation with my team, and then well do this big reveal. And every time we’ve done that, its gone horribly wrong, because 1) people feel like were lecturing to them, like we know better than them. And then 2) we would typically have over-engineered it! It would be like the 747 cockpit, you know? There would be this overwhelming amount of knobs and bits and pieces that I think are great to have, but from their viewpoint, they only need to do a few things, and thats an overwhelming amount of stuff to have to sign up to be able to do. So now, Ive gotten into a habit: before I even write a single line of code, I interview everybody that potentially will use the solution that Im going to write, and I keep them in lockstep with me and my team just about every week. We keep them engaged, helping to influence the direction Im basically trying to echo out in code all of what they want. Its gone so much better, because they feel invested. They don’t feel like in six months I’m revealing this big, mysterious thing. They feel like this is just something they’ve seen through iterations. And whats empowering about that, too, is if you can get the spiritual leaders of the different departments that you’re trying to encourage to use your solution, they’ll help sell it for you.
And then a bit on their progress:
Were about 50% of the way in having some amount of production coverage powered by microservices which are deployable in cloud containers powered by technologies such as Spring and Spring Cloud.
There’s more, good cultural change stories in the interview.
There’s a few stories out about Canonical, likely centered around some PR campaign that they’re seeking to IPO at some time, shifting the company around appropriately. Here’s some highlights from the recent spate of news around Canonical.
Testing the Red Hat Theory, competing for the cloud-native stack
Why care? Aside from Canonical just being interesting – they’ve been first and/or early to many cloud technologies and containers – there’d finally be another Red Hat if they were public.
Most of the open source thought-lords agree that “there can never be another Red Hat,” so, we’ll see if the Ubuntu folks can pull it off. Or, at the very least, how an pure open source company wangles it out otherwise.
That said, SUSE (part of HPE/Micro Focus) has built an interesting business around Linux, OpenStack, and related stuff. Ever since disentangling from Novell, SUSE has had impressive growth (usually something around 20 and 25% a year in revenue). All is which to, the Red Hat model actually is being used successfully by SUSE, which, arguably, just suffered from negative synergies (or, for those who don’t like big words, “shit the bed”) when it was owned by Novell.
As I’m perhaps too fond of contextualizing, it’s also good to remember that Red Hat is still “just” a $2.5bn company, by revenue. Revenue was $1.5bn in 2014, so, still, very impressive growth; but, that’s been a long, 24 year journey.
All these “Linux vendors,”like pretty much everyone else in the infrastructure software market, are battling for control over the new platform, that stack of cloud-y software that is defining “cloud-native,” using containers, and trying to enable the process/mindset/culture of DevOps. This is all in response to responding to enterprises’ growing desire to be more strategic with IT.
Shuttleworth said “in the last year, Ubuntu cloud growth had been 70 percent on the private cloud and 90 percent on the public cloud.” In particular, “Ubuntu has been gaining more customers on the big five public clouds.”
Its OpenStack cloud division has been profitable, said Shuttleworth, since 2015
Al Sadowski has an extensive report on Canonical, mentioning:
[Canonical] now has more than 700 paying customers and sees a $1bn business for its OS, applications and IT operations software. Time will tell if this goal is realized.
Canonical claims some 700 customers paying for its support services on top of Ubuntu and other offerings (double the 350 it had three years ago), and to have achieved more than $100m in bookings in its last financial year…. [Overall, it’s] not yet a profitable business (although its Ubuntu unit is). We estimate GAAP revenue of about $95m.
On focusing the portfolio, shoring it up for better finances for an IPO:
we had to cut out those parts that couldn’t meet an investors’ needs. The immediate work is get all parts of the company profitable.
To that end, as Alexander J. Martin reports:
More than 80 workers at Ubuntu-maker Canonical are facing the chop as founder Mark Shuttleworth takes back the role of chief executive officer…. 31 or more staffers have already left the Linux distro biz ahead of Shuttleworth’s rise, with at least 26 others now on formal notice and uncertainty surrounding the remainder
Back to Al on the Job to Be done, building and supporting those new cloud-native platforms:
Rather than offering ways to support legacy applications, the company has placed bets on its Ubuntu operating system for cloud-native applications, OpenStack IaaS for infrastructure management, and Docker and Kubernetes container software.
And, it seems to be working:
Supporting public cloud providers has been a success story for Canonical – year-over-year revenue grew 91% in this area…. Per Canonical, 70% of the guest OS images on AWS and 80% of the Linux images on Microsoft Azure are Ubuntu. Its bare-metal offering, MaaS (Metal as a Service), is now used on 80,000 physical servers.
On OpenStack in particular:
Canonical claims to be building 4,000 OpenStack deployments a month at some 180 vendors…. It claims multiple seven-figure deals (through partners) for its BootStrap managed OpenStack-as-a-service offering, and that the average deal size for OpenStack is trending upward.
The Vaughan-Nichols piece outlines Shuttleworth’s IPO plans:
Still, there is “no timeline for the IPO.” First, Shuttleworth wants all parts of the slimmed down Canonical to be profitable. Then “we will take a round of investment.” After that, Canonical will go public.
However, Al’s report says:
It is not seeking additional funding at this time.
Probably both are true, and the answer as Shuttleworth says is “well, in a few years once we get the company to be profitable.
- Al’s report is really good and, as always for him and most 451 reports, thorough as shit. Check it out for lists of customers and more analysis of Canonical’s business mix.
- If you’re into Shuttleworth, Barton George does frequent video interviews with him.
Thus far, it seems like the large banks are fending off digital disruption, perhaps embracing some of it on their own. The Economist takes a look:
- “Peer-to-peer lending, for instance, has grown rapidly, but still amounted to just $19bn on America’s biggest platforms and £3.8bn in Britain last year”
- “last year JPMorgan Chase spent over $9.5bn on technology, including $3bn on new initiatives”
- From a similar piece in the NY Times: “The consulting firm McKinsey estimated in a report last month that digital disruption could put $90 billion, or 25 percent of bank profits, at risk over the next three years as services become more automated and more tellers are replaced by chatbots.”
- But: “Much of this change, however, is now expected to come from the banks themselves as they absorb new ideas from the technology world and shrink their own operations, without necessarily losing significant numbers of customers to start-ups.”
- Back to The Economist piece: “As well as economies of scale, they enjoy the advantage of incumbency in a heavily regulated industry. Entrants have to apply for banking licences, hire compliance staff and so forth, the costs of which weigh more heavily on smaller firms.”
- Regulations and customer loyalty are less in China, resulting in more investment in new financial tech in Asia:
- As another article puts it: “China has four of the five most valuable financial technology start-ups in the world, according to CB Insights, with Ant Financial leading the way at $60 billion. And investments in financial technology rose 64 percent in China last year, while they were falling 29 percent in the United States, according to CB Insights.”
- Why? “The obvious reason that financial start-ups have not achieved the same level of growth in the United States is that most Americans already have access to a relatively functional set of financial products, unlike in Africa and China.”
- There’s some commentary on the speed of sharing blockchain updates can reduce multi-day bank transfers (and payments) to, I assume, minutes. Thus: ‘“Blockchain reduces the cost of trust,” says Mr Lubin of ConsenSys.’
Fixing legacy problems with new platforms, not easy
- The idea of building banking platforms to clean up the decades of legacy integration problems.
- Mainframes are a problem, as a Gartner report from last year puts it: “The challenge for many of today’s modernization projects is not simply a change in technology, but often a fundamental restructuring of application architectures and deployment models. Mainframe hardware and software architectures have defined the structure of applications built on this platform for the last 50 years. Tending toward large-scale, monolithic systems that are predominantly customized, they represent the ultimate in size, complexity, reliability and availability.”
- But, unless/until there’s a crisis, changes won’t be funded: “Banks need to be able to justify the cost and risk of any modernization project. This can be difficult in the face of a well-proven, time-tested portfolio that has represented the needs of the banking system for decades.”
- Sort of in the “but wasn’t that always the goal, but from that same article, Gartner suggests the vision for new fintech: ‘Gartner, Hype Cycle for Digital Banking Transformation, 2015, says, “To be truly digital, banks must pair an emphasis on customer-facing capabilities with investment in the technical, architectural, analytic and organizational foundations that enable participation in the financial services ecosystem.”’
- BCG has a prescriptive piece for setting the strategy for all this, from Nov. 2015.
- A bit correlation-y, but still useful, from that BCG piece: “While past performance is no guarantee of future results, and even though all the company’s results cannot be entirely attributed to BBVA’s digital transformation plan, so far many signs are encouraging. The number of BBVA’s digital customers increased by 68% from 2011 to 2014, reaching 8.4 million in mid-2014, of which 3.6 million were active mobile users. Because of the increasing use of digital channels and efforts to reconfigure the bank’s branch network—creating smaller branches that emphasize customer self-service and larger branches that provide higher levels of personalized advice through a remote cross-selling support system—BBVA achieved a reduction in costs of 8% in 2014, or €340 million, in the core business in Spain. Meanwhile, the bank’s net profits increased by 26% in 2014, reaching €2.6 billion.”
- And a more recent write-up of JPMC’s cloud-native programs, e.g.: ‘“We aren’t looking to decrease the amount of money the firm is spending on technology. We’re looking to change the mix between run-the-bank costs versus innovation investment,” he said. “We’ve got to continue to be really aggressive in reducing the run-the bank costs and do it in a very thoughtful way to maintain the existing technology base in the most efficient way possible.” …Dollars saved by using lower-cost cloud infrastructure and platforms will be reinvested in technology, he said.’ JPMC, of course, is a member of the Cloud Foundry Foundation which means, you know, they’re into that kind of thing.
There’s a whole slurry of myths about Cloud Foundry. With the platform updating so quickly, many of the issues behind these myths have long been addressed, and many were just false from the get-go. Coté and Richard talk about a recent post dismissing common myths. We also discuss recent news from the infrastructure software world and go over a bunch of upcoming events that Pivotal will be at.
If you use something like Overcast, be sure to check out the overly-extensive chapters and links right inside the podcast.
You should subscribe to the podcast!