I'm not comfortable with the idea of "cheapness" as a criteria for a cloud server service. There are just too many potential political and social issues. Here's the kind of criteria that will go into the development of economically competitive cloud server sites:
- Large volumes of cheap electricity. The reason is obvious.
- Proximity to rivers and lakes. They use a large amount of water for cooling purposes.
- Large areas of land. Allows for more privacy and security.
- Tax incentives. This allows you to help pay for their development - what corporation wouldn't want that.
- Access to technically-trained personnel at modest wages. As prices drop, this will, of course, be in Silicon Valley or close proximity to Puget Sound.
There's much BS about things like focus on renewable power sources. I call it BS because there is a finite quantity of reliable power available at any one time and if you want the cheapest the solution is to appear to be in an area that is served by "green" energy then buy the cheapest leaving others to carry the cost of being green.
And then in 2011 we learned:
At the Office 365 launch, Microsoft U.K.'s managing director Gordon Frazer, gave the first admission that cloud data, regardless of where it is in the world, is not protected against the Patriot Act Act.
After a year of researching the Patriot Act's breadth and ability to access data held within protected EU boundaries, Microsoft was the first cloud provider to openly admit it.
But hey, another few cheap terabyte here and there, and pretty soon you've got some real data for the government to wade through.
Edited by phrelin, 17 March 2014 - 03:26 PM.
"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."
"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian