Amazon.com: AWS - Not The Rivers Of Gold Imagined

NASDAQ with the Amazon.com summary shows that the share price closed at $ 949.04 with a market cap of 453.6 billion and the P / E ratio of 178.39.

The market capitalization of 453.6 billion is 110 times the first quarter of 2011 by Amazon.com Q1-2017, a twelve-month EBIT (TTM) of 4.12 billion.

AWS contributed 77.5% of EBIT Q1-2017 TTM 4.12 billion, which helped keep ongoing earnings growth for AWS vital to Amazon.com.

Investors who buy at $ 949.04 on Monday, intending to hold for five years pending an average return of 10.0% per annum, will sell five to 1,528.44 $ per share. If the expected return on investment is a doubling of the share price, an exit price within five years will be required $ 1,898.08, representing a return of 14.87% per year.

At an expected return of 20% per year, the sale price is $ 2 361.52 per share. However, if the price / EBIT (P / EBIT) ratio should remain at current 110 and provide the outstanding shares remain at 478m, EBIT in five years would only increase by 4.12 billion US dollars. To 6610 million for 10% yield, 8.24 billion for the yield of 14.87% and 10.25 billion for the return on investment of 20% per year. The net profit estimated after interest and taxes for the year 2021, in these scenarios would be between 4 billion and $ 7 billion. Now this level of compensation seems very feasible for this genius online, with a total turnover of 136 billion in 2016. However, there are many "ifs" mentioned above, which means that many uncertainty and increase in Uncertainty equals greater risk. Therefore, investors should definitely look back Amazon.com in the range of at least 10% to 20% and maybe higher.

For performance expectations below 10%, I am sure there are much safer investment options. Stock price gains were averaging over 33% per year between the end of 2011 and the end of 2016, the stock price increasing from $ 179.03 to $ 753.67. From the end of 2016 to May 8, 2017, a further increase of 26% brought the stock price to $ 949.04. I have to ask if there is a quantification of future growth in EBIT would justify stock price increases and the size of the role expected of AWS to contribute to EBIT growth?

Bumper growth for Amazon competitors no threat to AWS dominance

Competitors from Amazon Web Services narrow the gap in the giant cloud infrastructure service provider, recording significantly higher growth in the last quarter, but this does not prevent AWS as the market reached nearly $ 10 billion - with a Growth of 40%.

The new Synergy Research Group figures show that Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle Alibaba and all have a "significantly higher" Q1 growth rate than AWS, Microsoft, Google and Alibaba with growth of 80% or more .

However, despite the strong growth of its competitors, Synergy Research claims that AWS remains "in a clean league" with "comfortably large" revenue that every five competitors put together.

John Dinsdale, Synergy Research Group, says the first part of the cloud vendor market now shows a clear stratification with AWS, a group of fastest growing hunters and some other niche players run on Salesforce and Rackspace.

While Salesforce and Rackspace have lower growth rates than other companies, Synergy said both maintain a strong position in their niche markets.

"Beyond these leading companies, the cloud market has a long tail of small and medium-sized suppliers or businesses that have only a minor position in the market, usually based on a specific country or area of application Specific, "Dinsdale said.

"There are decent growth opportunities for some of these smaller players, but it is unlikely to have a big impact in terms of global market share in the world," he added.

Synergy Research estimates the quarterly revenue of cloud infrastructure services, which include infrastructure-as-a-service, platform-as-a-service cloud services and hosted, came "nearly" 10 billion US dollars and Continue to grow at more than 40% per year.

AWS, Microsoft and Google are the leaders in the IaaS / PaaS space, while IBM continues to lead a private cloud offered.

Synergy says the private cloud offered is where Rackspace and some traditional service providers offer more features than the public cloud.

Deep dive on AWS vs. Azure vs. Google cloud storage options

One of the most common use cases for IaaS public cloud computing is storage and for good reason: instead of buying hardware and administering, users simply load the data into the cloud and pay what they put in their place .

It sounds simple. But in reality, the world storing in the cloud has many facets to consider. Each of the top three public cloud providers IaaS - Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform - has a variety of storage options and, in some cases, complicated diagrams for how much.

According to Brian Adler, the company's architecture director at CloudScale, cloud management provider, who recently conducted a seminar comparing storage options in the cloud, there is clearly clearly better than other providers. "Is anyone in mind? It really depends on what is being used (the cloud)," he said. Each provider has its own strengths and weaknesses as the specific use case, he said. Three cases of the most popular use cloud storage and how providers accumulate.

Block storage

The storage drive is a persistent disk storage used in conjunction with virtual machines based on the cloud. Each of the suppliers break their block storage offerings into two categories: traditional dynamic rotating magnetic hard drives or the latest static (SSD) drives, generally more expensive but with better performance. Clients can also pay a premium to get a certain amount of I / O guarantees per second (IOPS), which is essentially an indication of how fast they will back up new log information and read the information stored on it.

The product is called Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS) and comes in three main flavors: HHD optimized performance, featuring traditional magnetic disc and spinning; General purpose SSD new generation of readers; And provisional SOPI IOPS, which offers a guaranteed rate of read and write data.

The Azure storage offer blocks called managed disks and is available in standard or premium with the latter based on the SSD.

The version of Google called Persistent Disks (PDS), which is in a standard option or SSD.

AWS and Google have 99.95% availability, while Azure offers a 99.99% service level agreement (SLA) for the bulk storage service.

One of the most important factors to consider when buying storage units is the speed with which you need to access the data stored on the SSD. For this, providers offer different rates guaranteed PIO. Google is in the lead; The company offers 40,000 IOPS to read and 30,000 to write in their records. The AWS general purpose SSD offers 10,000 IOPS, but its offering provides the IOP can offer up to 20,000 IOP example, with a maximum IOP of 65,000 by volume. Azure provides 5000 IOP.

Google not only has the highest IOP, but offers customers the widest range in the size of block storage volumes. For a more traditional hard drive based storage, Google offers volume sizes ranging from 1GB to 64TB. AWS offers volumes from 500 GB to 16 TB. Azure offers volume sizes of 1GB and 1TB. As for SSDs, Google offers the highest level of IOP on hard drives by volume in 3000 for reads and 15 000 for writing. AWS and Azure are 500 GPI max. In terms of volume. Azure maximum rates are 60 MB Google 180 for reading and 120 for writing, and AWS 500 MBps.





As for prices, it becomes a bit complicated (all prices are per GB / month), but for HHD, AWS starts at $ 0.045, Google is $ 0.04 and Azure is $ 0.03.

The SSD price starts at $ 0.10 in AWS, $ 0.17 for Google and between $ 0.12 and $ 0.14 for Azure, depending on the size of the drive.

In a price analysis conducted by RightScale, the company found that, generally, the pricing structure means that Azure has the best price / quality ratio for block storage. But, for workloads requiring higher IOPs, Google becomes the most profitable option.

There are reservations when using the provisioned IOPs, says Kim Weins, vice president of marketing at RightScale. In AWS, if you need a guaranteed amount of IOP, it costs a premium. "You pay a higher cost per GB, but you also pay the required IOPs in addition, which results in a higher cost," said Weins. "Be smart about choosing your IOP level supported because you're going to pay."

Weins adds that RightScale found that some customers paid for IOPs and then forgot to unprotect the EBS instance when they finished using it, which cost money.

Storage of objects

Do you have a file that you need to put in the cloud? Object storage is the service for you. Again, cloud providers have different types of storage, classified by the frequency at which the customer expects to access them. "Warm" storage is a data that must be almost instantly accessible. "Cool" storage is more rarely available, and cold storage is an archival material that is rarely accessed. The colder the storage, the less expensive it is.

The primary storage platform for AWS objects is Simple Storage Service (S3). It offers S3 Infrequent Access for a cool storage and Glacier for cold storage. Google has Google Cloud Storage, GCS Nearline for cool storage and GCS Coldline for archiving. Azure has only one hot and cool option with hot and fresh Azure storage drops; Clients must use the cool storage for archive data. AWS and Google each have an object size limit of 5 TB, while Azure has a limit of 500 TB per account. AWS and Google each release 99.999999999% durability for objects stored in their cloud. This means that if you store 10,000 objects in the cloud, on average, a file will be lost every 10 million years, according to AWS. The goal is that these systems are designed to be ultra-durable. Azure does not publish sustainability service level agreements.

Prices on storage of objects are slightly more complicated because customers can choose to host their data in a single region, or at a slightly increased cost, they can save it in several regions, which is an optimal practice for you Ensure access to your data If there is a breakdown in a region.

In AWS, for example, costs S3 (all prices are in GB / month) $ 0.023; To replicate data across multiple regions, costs twice as much: $ 0.046, plus a transfer fee of $ 0.01 per GB. AWS's S3 Infrequent Access (AI) storage service is $ 0.0125 and its Glacier cold storage / archiving service costs $ 0.004

Google has the most similar offers: its cost of storage at a single region costs $ 0.02, while the multi-region is $ 0.026, with a free data transfer. The company's cool storage platform, Nearline, is $ 0.01 and the Cold / Archival Coldline product is $ 0.007. Google states that Coldline's data recovery is faster (in milliseconds) than in Glacier, which according to AWS could take between minutes and hours.

Azure offers one-region storage for $ 0.0184, and what it calls "Global Redundant Storage" for $ 0.046, but it's read-only, which means you can not write changes, which means Costs more. The cool storage of Azure is called Cool Blob Storage is $ 0.01. Azure does not yet offer a cold or archival storage platform, so customers must use the Cool Blob storage for this use case.

Based on these price scenarios, Google has the cheapest storage costs of pure objects plus the free data transfer, RightScale found. However, AWS beats Google's cold storage costs.

Storage of files

An emerging use case is the use of a cloud-based file storage system. Think of it as a cloud-based version of a more traditional network file system (NFS): users can mount files on the system from any connected device or virtual machine, and then read and recover Files. This is a case of relatively nascent cloud storage use and, as a result, offers are still incomplete compared to storage of blocks and objects, according to Adler.

AWS 'offer in this category is called Elastic File Storage, a beta version of June 2016. It allows users to mount files from AWS Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) or local Using AWS Direct Connect or a Virtual Private Connection (VPC). There is no size limit, so it varies automatically according to needs and offers a throughput of 50 MB per second per TB of storage; Customers can pay up to 100 Mbps throughput. It starts at $ 0.30 / GB / month.

Azure, on the other hand, offers Azure File Storage, of a similar nature, but has a capacity of 5 TB per file and 500 TB per account and requires manual scaling. It offers a throughput of 60MBps to play files.

Google does not have a native file storage offering, but offers the open source FUSE adapter, which allows users to mount files from Google Cloud Storage buckets and convert them to a file system. Google says it provides the highest throughput of the three vendors with 180MBps read and 120MBps on writes. But Adler said in his experience that the FUSE adapter is not as well integrated into Google's cloud platform as compared to the other two offerings, resulting in potentially frustrating experiences with users. Adler also notes that AWS EFS does not have a native backup solution, while Azure does. AWS encourages EFS users to rely on third-party backup tools at this point.

Azure and Google offer lower prices for their file storage systems compared to AWS: Azure is $ 0.80 per GB / month and Google is $ 0.20, but Adler says these costs do not account for Replication or transfer costs. While the AWS base price might seem higher, taking into account all it affects scaling, it could be a wash between the three vendors .

AWS now lets you migrate MongoDB databases to DynamoDB

The public cloud infrastructure provider Amazon Web Services (AWS) today announced an upgrade to its database migration service (DMS). Now, people can transfer their databases into the NoSQL MongoDB open source database in the NoSQL service managed by DynamoDB owning AWS with the help of DMS.

In fact, DMS now supports the migration of NoSQL databases in general, AWS said in a blog post. This suggests that more NoSQL databases could get official DMS support in the future. Currently, DMS can work with Oracle databases, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, Amazon Aurora, PostgreSQL and SAP ASE, said Amazon.

AWS presented the DMS and the compatible schema conversion tool in 2015. In December, AWS CEO Andy Jassy said that DMS had made 16,000 migrations in 2016. In total, More than 22,000 migrations, Jassy said in a tweet last month.

In February AWS announced that the schema conversion tool could take data from Oracle and Teradata data warehouses and prepare it for installation in the AWS Redshift data storage service.

MongoDB was once a very trendy technology among developers. The company behind it, also called MongoDB, offers a managed version of the database hosted on AWS. Now, AWS will be able to generate revenue where organizations had previously sought to use MongoDB for databases in their on-site data centers. In other words, AWS is now challenging its own client, and this is not the first time it's happening .

Azure Surpasses AWS as the Public Cloud of Choice

A new survey of IT professionals shows that Microsoft Azure outperformed Amazon Web Services (AWS) as a public cloud provider of choice, although there is considerable overlap.

The survey was controlled by Sumo Logic, a provider of data analysis, and was created by UBM Research. 230 IT professionals were surveyed in companies with at least 500 employees.

The survey found that 80 percent of companies use or should use at least one public cloud provider, if not more currently. And given the numbers, many uses clearly more than one. About two-thirds (66 percent) of the respondents said they were using Azure while 55 percent said they were using AWS. The Cloud of the Salesforce application is in third in 28%, 23% the fourth IBM and Google reaches 20%.


More than half of Azure users of companies with more than 10,000 employees, suggesting that Microsoft's cloud is especially popular among large companies, according to the survey.

The result is remarkable, as it is the first study to put Azure for AWS. All other previous surveys have always found that AWS was the market leader in public cloud providers. Now IT professionals 230 do not make a major trend, but could be the first sign that Microsoft has taken the lead in this market. Or it could be an aberration.

In addition, the survey found that 67 percent of respondents use software as a service (SaaS), around four out of 10 use of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and / or a-Service delivery platform (PaaS) . The development of new applications, which is associated with the use of clouds is also popular: DevOps. UBM found that 68% of respondents plan to adopt or already DevOps.

DevOps is supposed to be a faster way to write and deploy new applications, and this corresponds to the survey results according to which 42% of respondents said they were deploying applications more frequently than in the past, while Only 8% of respondents said they were implementing less frequent applications than in previous years.

"Trends such as cloud computing and DevOps help companies to be more flexible and responsive to market conditions. However, as cloud computing becomes the norm in IT organizations, security issues persist," Said Amy Doherty UBM's technology research director in a statement.

Security remains the main concern of companies embracing the cloud. When asked questions about the biggest security challenges in the cloud has received the highest number of votes (27%) of the respondents. While most respondents (55 percent) said that public cloud services are safer than they were, only 6 percent describe security in the public cloud as "excellent."

Other damaged articles for cloud adopters are migrating applications and data to the cloud (15 percent), to get a unified view of the cloud and traditional IT infrastructure (8 percent), and application and Based operations (7 percent).

Amazon's cloud VP was on stage talking up

Amazon's cloud VP was on stage talking up AWS at the very moment it went crashing down

A few months ago, Amazon was an important place. He convinced Adrian Cockcroft to come to work for the company as vice president of the Cloud Architecture Strategy.

Cockcroft had consulted for Battery Ventures, the VC help find new companies to invest in the cloud.

However, he is best known for his years with Netflix as the first most famous client of Amazon Web Services. He directed the project, in 2009, to have Netflix built its streaming movie service on AWS and did not use its own data centers. It was a crazy decision at the time. Cloud computing at the time was best known as a bad, unreliable and possibly dangerous alternative to owning their own computers. When, in 2010, Netflix began to speak publicly about the decision, everyone thought it was a place between Netflix dumb and reckless.

"I gave him a lecture at a conference in late 2010 to 100 or more audience reaction .." You're crazy, "said Cockcroft Business Insider last year." [AWS] was small was unreliable, there were all kinds of things Were not there, we were basically helping to create what is now being declared to AWS, "if you do this, it will work. '' T work, 'and' we need this feature. '"

Even in 2012, AWS was not exactly reliable. Has been famous down on Christmas Eve this year, so the national news.

Flash Forward until the beginning of 2017 and the world loves it all and AWS and cloud computing companies are racing to put their businesses into it. AWS Cockcroft's main job is to talk to companies that do what Netflix did in their day - get rid of their data centers and go through AWS.

A growing list of companies do this like Intuit, Time, Juniper, AOL, Hertz and more all the time, said on stage at a conference in San Francisco on Tuesday.

But sometimes the downside of relying on cloud services like Amazon can become painful obvious.

And unfortunately that was the case on Tuesday, where just when Cockcroft was run by AWS, a good chunk of the Internet had been destroyed (including the Business Insider site) because the AWS data storage service, S3, suffered problems Technicians.

The service has declined so AWS was even struggling to update the "health board image" that tells customers if the service is up or down. Read a message on this page (emphasis added):

Now we have fixed the possibility of updating the service dashboard update service santé.Les are below.General continue to experience high error rates with S3 in US-ESTE-1, which has implications for various AWS.Nous services that work hard for Solving S3 we believe we understand the root cause, and work on implementation of what we believe will correct the problem. "

Even after updating this page to indicate that there was a problem, very distinctly AWS has not called a failure. It is called "high error rate data."

In the few minutes during Cockcroft spoke onstage promoting the benefits of cloud services from Amazon, you probably are not aware of AWS technical problems that occur at the moment, an Internet phenomenon was born.

AWS GameLift Now Supports Unreal Engine

Amazon Web Services, a subsidiary of the online giant distribution, announced that its GameLift service is now available for games developed in the Unreal engine.

In a blog post, Daniel Kayser, Product Marketing Manager for Epic's Unreal Engine says developers can now benefit from the fee-based management system designed to deploy and host multiplayer games. The system is scalable and uses very capable infrastructure in the AWS cloud to support millions of concurrent players.

To go along with the aforementioned features, Kayser also emphasized the newly added GameLift twinning ability that "intelligently selects the closest game server based on the location of each player, giving players the lowest latency possible through Taking advantage of AWS global footprint.

Seth Sivak, executive director of the independent development studio Proletariat Inc. (manufacturers of Zombie Nation Worldwide and Streamline) states:

• For the Proletariat team, the choice was simple: hire a team of engineers who spend months building our own cloud infrastructure or launching our game in Amazon GameLift in a matter of days.
• GameLift Amazon has made it easy for us to give our inexpensive fans world-class online experience

The plug-in is available in the Unreal engine developers market, with availability in the following territories:

• (East), Western United States (Oregon), European Union Center (Frankfurt), Western European Union (Asia), Asia Pacific Northwest (Seoul Tokyo) Southeast Asia