At every company I've worked at we've had at least a couple of network failures per year, lasting a couple of hours each. Sometimes due to local network issues, sometimes external. Each hour of downtime costs a lot of money, since so many employees are affected. At least they can continue to do local work on their PC if the applications are locally installed on it. But if they couldn't even access those applications since they are in the cloud, it would be far worse.
As it should happen because of the 10nm delay.Intel Forecast Capex '15 is now just $7.7 billions.
6 months ago was 10.5 billions, 3 months ago 8.7 billions.
There is several years between such an issue here.
Also what good does it do that they can work locally on a PC? If they lack (ip)phone, network shares, databases, email, CRM, internet etc?
The amount of work you can do today on a non networked PC in a corporation is close to zero.
You can pretty much continue developing SW as usual. If you're using git or another distributed revision control system you can even commit changes locally, and push to git server once the network comes online again.
As for all office type applications, you can continue working on them too (and even access stuff on the local network, assuming the problem is with the external network). You can continue writing emails, and send them when the network is online again.
If that functionality was in the cloud instead, you'd be lost...
So some shoehorn niche excuse for places without redunancy. And somehow cost still isnt an issue.
Like always, the market have spoken and its still not in your favour.
office 365 includes 5 licenses as well. you can use the apps offline, it's a simple install. it also includes an exchange mailbox.
And i'm not sure what the $50 is for, we pay $12.5 a user a month, less than what we previously paid just for exchange.
edit: yeah, the highest package is $20, no idea what the $50 is about.
Cloud is eventualy relevant for non critical datas, i dont expect any serious business to upload datas that are strategical, it would be a suicide on the long term...
$50 includes a high end Azure setup, so you can host your VDI's and other apps with Microsoft. Such as something that requires a SQL server instance.
Basically I was putting together a complete IT package for a small business. Throw a cheap thin / zero client on the desktop and you are set to go.
In 1Q2015 Amazon did $5.6B of cloud business.
So quite a lot, but not that impressive. Less in profit per year than Intel loses in mobile in 2 months alone...AWS made $5.16 billion in revenue over the past 12 months, [...] and earned $680 million, a 13% operating margin
Surely he must know better than actual reality...If no one is buying PCs then why didn't Intel warn? This is strictly an AMD issue, not a market issue.
No, per year.
http://online.barrons.com/articles/intel-upside-means-buy-micron-1437075288
Intels results confirm some inventory build, and Micron shares look oversold as PC weakness begins to abate.
PC sales are down in general and even for Intel? No that cannot be true. Here's what Phynaz said just a few days ago:
Surely he must know better than actual reality...
Some quick back of the napkin math.
Intel client sales $7.5B
AMD client sales $0.37B
================
Total Market $7.87B
7.50/7.87*100 = 95% market share for Intel.
People wonder what Intel will do if AMD goes under? They are already doing it.
It is $5b per year.. from your own link..
"“Amazon Web Services is a $5 billion business and still growing fast — in fact it’s accelerating,” said Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com"
Revenue wise they are in the ~2% range compared in the PC x86 segment including servers.
The 379M$ from AMD includes GPUs.
I haven't done the math yet, how much more market share did Intel take from AMD? Maybe AMD market share is in the single digits in PC like they are in servers. :whiste: