back to article Microsoft Azure almost doubles infrastructure cloud market presence

Competition for enterprise IT spend is intensifying with Microsoft and Google applying pressure to AWS. Microsoft's share of the cloud infrastructure market nearly doubled in the first three months of this year, according to analysts Canalys. Microsoft managed IaaS market growth of 93 per cent to just under $1.5bn compared to …

  1. Flakk

    Microsoft's growth is due to maximising its credibility and familiarity as an enterprise technology supplier through products like Windows, Office, Server and other tools. leveraging its licensing to strong-arm its customers onto Azure.

    FIFY

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      " with Microsoft and Google applying pressure to AWS."

      Google, lol? They are nowhere near Microsoft / Amazon in cloud.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Google, lol? They are nowhere near Microsoft / Amazon in cloud."

        Have you ever looked into Google Cloud? It is pretty clearly better than anything AWS and Azure offer. For instance, Google has the world's only truly global fiber backbone... you are always one network hop to Google private fiber. That is why G Suite (Google Apps) are able to do real time collaborative editing of docs where as MSFT cannot... super low latency, high throughput Google network. Google has amazing data services, look into Google Spanner (basically infinitely scalable, infinite performance, traditional relational DB with ACID compliance). BigQuery is also very impressive. GCP is also probably about 30-40% less for compute than EC2 and 20-30% than S3, based on the numbers I have run... you can run your own in the calculators, but clearly the most cost effective option. I think it is the most technically impressive and the most cost effective cloud. We're moving workload over.

        I think the reason why Google is in third, and no doubt they are, is because AWS was first and most people think cloud, they think AWS... just default to AWS and never look at other options. Azure is slightly larger because they are able to put the full weight on MSFT on customers, bundle it into their EAs, manipulate Windows and SQL pricing so people feel like Azure is cheaper, etc. Standard MSFT tactics.... but I think Azure will slow way down when they run out of Windows workload as Azure is very MSFT stack heavy. Azure doesn't really compete with AWS, GCP. Azure has their MSFT stack stuff at traditional enterprises... but how many Silicon Valley unicorns (new workload) run on Azure... zero.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Note the curious lack of IBM as a viable Public Cloud Provider. Note a lack of Lenovo as a Managed Services Provider, given that USA based bank/finance, medical, and Government customers must have USA based support, and Lenovo is a Chinese company. Don't expect that to ever change.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It is just the financial piece too for the IBMs, Oracles, etc of the world (even MSFT to some extent). Google and Amazon, especially Google, have a huge advantage in cloud from their consumer services. For instance, Google had data centers built around the world, a global private fiber backbone laid, 200 points of presence on that network around the world, huge investments in hardware manufacturing and optimizations, built custom software for cloud scale (e.g. Hadoop, Borg, GFS)... prior to even getting into selling public cloud in full force. It was all already there to run their consumer services. Many tens of billions invested and Google continues to add about $10 billion per year on infrastructure, network, etc. Google just had to expand their data centers slightly to take on thousands of customers as they were already running 30-40% of the internet. Amazon doesn't quite have the same footprint as Google (no one is as large as Google), but they still had a huge footprint from running Amazon.com with some of the benefits above.

      If you are IBM or Oracle or even MSFT to a lesser extent, it is really difficult to pour the tens of billions of capital required to play the game (effectively) into networks and infrastructure and data centers... when you don't have another consumer side business to subsidize those investments and when your reward investing those many billions is the chance to compete with Amazon, Google in a pricing war. Really difficult to come up with a calculation where that makes financial sense.

      That's why you see a lot of large companies, Cisco, VMware, HP, etc all dropping their public clouds. No chance at winning on volume, price, performance, reliability, etc against those players. Salesforce, kind of the original cloud company, has announced they will be getting out of all their own data centers and moving to the larger cloud providers (AWS and GCP)... because they are not trying to compete at the infrastructure layer, so why pay more and do it worse.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Speaking of office online

    I was using it earlier and one of the striking and unfortunate "design" decisions was that clicking on the various tools brings up new tabs. When I want a new tab, I'll assign one. Very poor design. Plus, you get the added amusement of having some tools hosted from different URLs. Orifice369 is on office.com for some reason, yet the idiotic Teams crApp is hosted from microsoft.com. Just very odd and poor design. Hint; steal some more ideas from Apple, office.com is not anything to be proud of. It's an icon comedy pretending to be helpful business tools. Nice one! :P

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speaking of office online

      office.com... There's your problem. The online version of Office is at docs.google.com.

      FIFY :) Joking, but not really joking. I get why people use the thick client version, they're used to it. If you are going with the web based versions though, and are presumably open to change as result, Google is just a lot better.

  4. VinceH
    Thumb Up

    "Microsoft's share of the cloud infrastructure market nearly doubled in the first three months of this year, according to analysts Canalys."

    Almost twice as many customers unable to access their data when there's an outage, then.

  5. Dwarf

    Market share

    The article states that Microsoft 1.5Bn vs AWS's 3.5Bn over the same period.

    So, with a quick bit of maths 1.5 / 3.5 = 42.8%, or AWS is more than twice the size of Microsoft.

    That shows how little people trust Microsoft's offering - even with their forced push to make them look like the "obvious" option.

    When will they learn that customers aren't gullible ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Market share

      "That shows how little people trust Microsoft's offering "

      No, it shows that AWS started in public IAAS cloud years before Azure did.

      AWS are not currently growing market share percentage whereas Azure is growing very rapidly. That would tend to indicate that people migrating to cloud these days favour Azure...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Market share

        "No, it shows that AWS started in public IAAS cloud years before Azure did."

        Well, two years before... and MSFT had a few more resources than Amazon, especially at the time.

        "AWS are not currently growing market share percentage whereas Azure is growing very rapidly."

        AWS is growing market share, they are still growing faster than MSFT in terms of dollars... smaller percentages of a big number = more revenue than big percentages on a small number. By percentage, Google is growing faster than all of them... on a smaller number.

        "That would tend to indicate that people migrating to cloud these days favour Azure..."

        Not really. It is more likely that any growth to Azure is coming from people moving WIndows Servers and MS SQL to Azure from on prem.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Market share

      Yeah, almost all of Azure is just MSFT stack stuff too... because MSFT can twist customers' arms and make it appear less costly to run on Azure and/or wrap it into their EAs whether customers want it or not.

      Azure, the Bing Cloud, is way worse than either AWS or GCP in performance, reliability. If it did not come from MSFT, no one would buy Azure on the technical or financial merits. No one.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Market share

        "way worse than either AWS or GCP in performance, reliability"

        I haven't seen reliability stats for Azure lately, but cloud benchmarks show Azure outperforms both Google and AWS for host IO performance, networking and storage. Especially on low latency / high bandwidth interconnect VMs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Market share

          Benchmarks from Microsoft marketing maybe.

          Google has the Jupiter networking, custom built, in their data centers. 2 petabits/s bi directional interconnect bandwidth in the data center. Google also has the world's only global fiber network. Regardless of where you are, you are one hop from Google private backbone. That's why YouTube videos don't need to buffer. Azure has nothing remotely similar. The hosts and storage are largely commodity, just depends on the number of nodes and media. Azure is also way worse on financials. They require any enterprise to sign up for a year of service or more with an up front cash purchase which you then spend down... that's not cloud, no pay as you go... turn it off at anytime.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like