>So it's not a 'data storage service in a remote data center'?
okay, looked at from a naive enough perspective, they have similarities. they both can be described using the buzzword 'cloud', but it doesn't go much beyond that. they do not perform the same task. they do not serve the same market. they do not have a similar interface. one service cannot replace the other. drawing any sort of comparison between the two is completely meaningless to the discussion at hand.
Not right now...the point is that if Apple wants to, they CAN create an API on top of iCloud to compete directly with AWS. That's the only major difference. Right now, Apple is one layer above Amazon. AWS is infrastructure, and iCloud is an application. But my point is, just like Amazon first built their data center capabilities to support their retail operation and eventually started selling their excess capacity - so too could Apple eventually do the same thing and have iCloud compete directly with AWS.
Regardless, the point is moot. My main point I was making is that iCloud is still a very small business for Apple - when what Amazon has shown us (even though they haven't broken out the financials) is that monetizing your excess capacity can be a viable business. If Apple knows how to do anything, it is to build viable products.
okay, looked at from a naive enough perspective, they have similarities. they both can be described using the buzzword 'cloud', but it doesn't go much beyond that. they do not perform the same task. they do not serve the same market. they do not have a similar interface. one service cannot replace the other. drawing any sort of comparison between the two is completely meaningless to the discussion at hand.