451’s container orchestration usage survey – Notebook


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.”
  • Demographics:
    • “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.

IT’s usefulness is improving, but there’s plenty of room to fix the meatware, Surveys – Highlights

It’s another survey about business/IT alignment. Who knows how accurate these leadgen PDFs are, but why not? This one is of “646 CIOs and other IT leaders and 200 line of business leaders.” Some summaries from Minda Zetlin:

When LOB leaders were asked about the role their companies’ CIOs play, 41 percent said the CIO is a strategic advisor who identifies business needs and opportunities and proposes technology to address them. Another 22 percent said the CIO is a consultant who provides advice about technology and service providers when asked.

But 10 percent said their CIO was a “roadblock” who raises so many obstacles and objections to new technology that projects are difficult to complete. And another 9 percent said the CIO was a “rogue player,” with IT making technology decisions on its own, and creating visibility and transparency challenges.

Meanwhile, 36 percent of LOB leaders and 31 percent of IT leaders believe other departments “see IT as an obstacle.” And 58 percent of IT leaders but only 13 percent of LOB leaders agreed with the statement, “IT gets scapegoated by other departments when they miss their own goals.”

This seems better than the usual (kind of out of date) scare chart I used use, from a multi-year Cutter survey:

There’s still, as ever, plenty of room to improve business/IT alignment.

Speaking of that, also in that IDG/CIO Magazine survey, there’s a weird mismatch between the perception of The Business and IT about what IT does:

What does The Business want anyway?

Meanwhile, Vinnie quotes a Gartner survey of 388 CEOs:

  • Almost twice as many CEOs are intent on building up in-house technology and digital capabilities as those plan on outsourcing it (57 percent and 29 percent, respectively).
  • Forty-seven percent of CEOs are directed by their board of directors to make rapid progress in digital business transformation, and 56 percent said that their digital improvements have already delivered profits.
  • 33 percent of CEOs measure digital revenue.

Point being: The Business wants IT to matter and be core to how their organizations evolve. They want programmable businesses. Here’s some examples from another summary of that Gartner survey:

Although a significant number of CEOs still mention eCommerce, more of them align new IT infrastructure investments to advanced commercial activities – such as digital product and service innovation, exploring the Internet of Things (IoT), or adopting digital platforms and associated supplier ecosystems.

According to the Gartner assessment, some CEOs have already advanced their digital business agenda – 20 percent of CEOs are now taking a digital-first approach to business development. “This might mean, for example, creating the first version of a new business process or in the form of a mobile app,” said Mr. Raskino.

Furthermore, 22 percent are applying digital business technologies to their traditional processes. That’s where the product, service and business models are being changed, and the new digital capabilities that support those are becoming core competencies.

There’s demand there, the final result of “the consumerization of enterprise IT,” as we used to crow about. IT needs to catch-up on its abilities to do more than “just keep the lights” on or there’ll be a donkey apocalypse out there.

You seem people like Comcast doing this catching-up, very rapidly. The good news is that the software and hardware is easy. It’s the meatware that’s the problem.

Link

TrumpTech – survey on Joe Six Pack’s sentiment, telco predictions

I didn’t check the legit’ness of the survey, but:

When it comes to tech priorities for the next four years, the general public doesn’t have the same agenda as tech leaders. For example, only 8% of the general public cares about the Internet of Things and only 5% sees 5G development as a priority. STEM education is only a priority for 13%.

What they do care about is security and hacking, particularly of government data (43%) and consumer data (38%). So if Trump’s administration does come into conflict with the social media and cloud giants, he’s going in with the public’s backing.

There’s no majority belief among either the tech elites or the general public that Trump will make the tech industry more innovative than before (42% and 39% respectively). Among the general public, the largest percentage believes that no change is the most likely option (40%), while more tech elites than Joe Six Packs fear stagnation (28% v 21%).

And, labor-wise:

Some 37% of the general public sees technology as a job destroyer for the average American. The sector is accused of bringing in foreign workers to the US by 70% of the general public and of shipping jobs overseas by 60%. (To be fair, the tech elites go along with these two conclusions!) Over half of the general public (56%) believe that US citizens should be given preference for tech jobs.

Meanwhile, one of the outgoing administrators says there’s plenty of tech jobs, just not qualified candidates:

These efforts will founder if there isn’t a continuing supply of qualified recruits, so next up is to increase access to high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Underlying the importance of education, the OST noted that more than 600,000 high-paying tech jobs went unfilled in the U.S. in 2015, and the number has only grown since.

See also another outgoing letter that encourages continuing programs that ease IT procurement and shared, cloud services like cloud.gov. Seeing how the Truml administrators treat those programs will be a key litmus test. As I alluded to yesterday, these types of programs seem like ideal “do more with less”/”copy the private sector” programs that fit into Trump’s campaign rhetoric. But, hey: hypocracy ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Telco M&A and regulations

Also, see this extensive net-neutrality/telco prediction piece from Caroline Craig.  With more from 451, if you have access

Despite a very activist FCC under President Barack Obama and Wheeler – resulting in stringent net-neutrality and privacy rules, and a pro-competitive view of mergers and acquisitions – US telecom operators recently have been more than willing to push the envelope. Multiple operators have experimented aggressively with zero-rating. Verizon, in particular, has explored the edges of consumer privacy – from its so-called (and abandoned) ‘super cookie’ effort to its ongoing emphasis on mobile advertising, including customer-data-driven ad targeting. While some industry M&A has stalled, AT&T’s surprising bid for Time Warner pushed the boundaries of vertical integration. A Trump administration looks to be much more hands-off, likely accelerating industry M&A and encouraging telecom providers to experiment freely, with the forces of the competitive market (rather than regulators) reining in anti-consumer oversteps. As the mobile market is now constituted – with four highly competitive wireless operators and a slew of cable operators and other disruptors (e.g., Google and new IoT upstarts) ready to leap in – we’re okay with that. No one wants an anti-competitive industry structure or to see consumer privacy exploited, but overly harsh limits can be destructive, too. It’s up to mobile and broadband operators to not abuse their likely new freedoms, and up to their customers (and regulators) to punish them if they do.

Bonus! check out the huge uptick in digital advertising spend this cycle:

As a matter of fact, digital media spending for 2016 political campaigns was projected to top $1 billion, contributing 9.8 percent of media spend. Comparatively, digital spending during the last presidential election season in 2012 was $160 million. 

Link

It’s Not the Economy, Stupid

Rational anaysis is hard to find in real life:

But in Elkhart, people have jobs they didn’t have six years ago, and they’re working more hours. Their homes are worth more than they were before Obama took office, on average, and their paychecks are fatter than they used to be. Yet Obama is, and will likely remain, the president who didn’t do anything right.

Link

Link: Forrester/IBM Report: ‘Great’ apps monetize five times better than good ones

Survey commissioned by IBM to find out what makes mobile apps great. Then, of course, it seeks to tie more success (revenue) to that greatness.

n=”1,000 consumers in the U.S., Canada, U.K. and India.”
Source: Forrester/IBM Report: ‘Great’ apps monetize five times better than good ones

The great OpenStack conundrum: with 15,000 members, why is adoption lagging?

This is the common OpenStack meme for coverage. Each Summit there’s more and more users – “customers” – but it will take a while before OpenStack is suddenly us an “overnight success.”

Looking at it from a different perspective, OpenStack is one of the biggest, new model for open source development: they’re iterating on the concept and mechanics of open source in new and novel ways, deep in bazaar mode vs. Fred Brook’s surgeon model, to mix metaphors and ages.

I think it’s best to think of OpenStack as a continuation of the Eclipse model, that isn’t really too explicit about it: the point of the overall effort is to provide and commoditize all the common components needed to make cloud software. The vendors – be try ISVs, service providers, or SIs – who take those common components make most of “the real” products (not all, of course). If there happens to be a fully functional cloud platform as a result apart from vendors, even better.

What’s incorrect in my comparison is that this doesn’t seem to be the explicit mission of the community. Indeed, I think holding back from a strong mission like that is intentional: and that’s where the OpenStack is more like the ASF. Unlike the ASF, the OpenStack community isn’t opposed to profit and business; those ASF guys seems allergic to it (which maps to their mission perfectly well).

Hence, it’s all sort of new. I don’t really know what “The Model” is yet.

See also Nancy’s piece on the meme.

The great OpenStack conundrum: with 15,000 members, why is adoption lagging?