Resource Review #6 Libraries in the Cloud: Making a Case for Google and Amazon

Buck, S. Libraries in the Cloud: Making a Case for Google and Amazon. Computers in Libraries v. 29 no. 8 (September 2009) p. 6-10

The author of this article, Stephanie Buck, defines herself as a MLS student at Simmons College, a fact I am impressed with considering her accomplishment of being published in the Computers in Libraries journal. The article covered the same bases as most introduction-to-cloud-computing articles, but its particular strength was describing the cost-effectiveness of the cloud model for libraries. The Google Apps suite costs $50 dollars a year, and operates comparably to the Microsoft Office Suite, which costs $500 dollars a year. The switch would equal huge savings for libraries. Another application, Amazon's S3, a cloud data storage system, charges are associated with individual requests for storage and transfer, so libraries only pay for what they use. Buck suggests using money saved on software for other places within the IT budget.

However, Buck is quick to point out that the cloud is not a perfect storage alternative in terms of cost. Traditional internal storage systems aim to reduce cost to the customer over a period of time by transferring older and less-accessed data to less expensive media. Current cloud computing companies charge exactly the same no matter how long the data has been stored. Consequently, cloud storage could potentially cost more long-term. Personally, I think that since cloud computing has not been around very long, it is impossible to predict how favorable it will be to store data long-term on the cloud. I am sure as cloud storage techniques become more fine-tuned and culturally popular that companies will adjust their rates to be competitive.

There is also the cost issue of migrating internally stored data to cloud applications, and the future potential for having to migrate data from one cloud application to another. Just because data is stored on the cloud does not mean its storage techniques will remain eternally viable. One librarian who is considering Amazon's S3 for his library commented that for him there is really no difference between having to migrate because of hardware obsolescence or service obsolescence, and that the faster retrieval times for patron requests and the clearing of local server space make the cloud option appealing. I agree with this reasoning. Considering how much sense cloud computing makes for libraries from an economic and service prospective, as well as its increasing popularity with the general public, I think it is the necessary technological future for libraries.