Microsoft Windows Azure, Demystified

04.12.2008

Not only is .NET clearly a better development environment than the competition, but also Microsoft brings scores of developers who know how to use it. By offering .NET as a service, Microsoft has made application portability to the cloud relatively simple. Essentially, the .NET development and runtime environment remain largely unchanged (Azure is using server virtualization underneath, but the application need not be aware). The biggest change is the application's runtime location (Microsoft's data center). Thus, Azure is likely to host thousands of applications, ensuring Microsoft's longevity as an application platform and perhaps vaulting Microsoft to the position of PaaS leader.

However, PaaS (including Windows Azure) also has some serious drawbacks:

-- Application portability and Vendor lock-in. Once an application is written to a specific application platform, how difficult would it be to move that application to another PaaS vendor who employs a different application platform?

-- Business continuity and availability. Things happen, they always do. What happens when the PaaS provider's data center goes down? Will the PaaS reimburse the IT organization for loss? Does the SLA have specific provisions that fit every IT organizations availability requirements?

These problems aren't unique to Microsoft. Google, Force.com, and Oracle have the same issues. But what are the specific problems for Microsoft and Windows Azure? What might prevent Windows Azure from succeeding?