When we talk about cloud we actually talk about three distinctly different phenomenon.

We have to architect systems differently!

I guess I didn’t take quite the same point from this post that hoolipot did (I thought the “excuse” comment was aimed at opportunistic vendors), but I do agree with his position.

My current experience tells me that the cloud hype is extremely loud and distorted right now. As with most emerging technologies or computing paradigms, the rush by vendors to capitalize on (or, create) new opportunities and by enthusiastic early adopters to try to gain an edge creates lots of confusion and silliness.

There is plenty of value to be gleaned from the cloud movement – even by the implementation of private/internal clouds. And after the cloud vendors and services have matured, they should be a valuable addition to the IT landscape and should be able to fill a variety of roles (some utilitarian). But let’s not rush to try to realize the promised benefits without a clear strategy, planning and risk management.

Just a brief comment about the etymology of the term “cloud.” When we used a “cloud” as a symbol for some entity out on the network, it was because we weren’t concerned with what was in that cloud. Someone else was providing results/output from the cloud that we needed. It didn’t matter how the functionality was implemented as long as it delivered what we needed at the edge (contracts and other means of assuring the usability, quality and usefulness are out of scope, here). Actually, pure SaaS vendors still fall in that category.

Now, as you point out, “Cloud Computing” as we use the term today is quite different. I strongly agree that if you’re hosting your own processes or data in/on a cloud that’s managed and controlled by another party… you definitely need to “worry your pretty little head” about it!!! For example, due diligence and clear, contractual agreement on SLAs is essential (and that’s just for starters).

Hmm - a software company VP proposing that Utility Computing might be a risky choice? Forgive my skepticism, but might Utility Computing actually be more of a risk to the profits of the aforementioned software company?

Miko makes some good points - not everything will work in the cloud, that's for sure. But to describe reduction of operational cost and economies of scale as "excuses" is ridiculous, especially in the current economic climate. These aren't excuses, they are DRIVERS that companies of all sizes are looking to utilize to survive.

Cloud Computing and Utility Computing aren't mature technologies by anybody's standard - but let's continue to develop them rather than badmouth them because of a couple of failures (which weren't even as bad as the internal software failures of most large organizations).