Tl;dr: “Supercloud” has turned into a super battle royale
Reader relevance: “super” niche
Despite the term itself being unhelpful, inexplicably, a battle has broken out for the ownership and definition of “supercloud”. (And it isn’t just me that finds the term unhelpful, though even I haven’t suggested we should “nuke it from orbit”).
Meanwhile, perhaps seeing this weakness and a void that could be filled, two new players have laid claim to the term.
CloudFlare, a company that needed to reframe and broaden its positioning beyond just a Content Distribution Network, used supercloud this week to describe their architecture and array of services. And with nary a mention of the previous “supercloud” definitions or debates. I’ve described (see comments) CloudFlare as an edge network, but that apparently wasn’t superlative enough.
Notably, CloudFlare’s offering is totally disjoint to all the (many) proffered definitions from the “supercloud” sultans, who have pigeon-holed CloudFlare as a mere “enabler of supercloud”, but not “supercloud” (and it is rare indeed for them to exclude anything from sitting under their supersized “supercloud” umbrella). So the battle for the soul of supercloud is on.
Our other new entrant is MIT, with their (sporadically PascalCased) SuperCloud. The MIT effort focuses on high performance computing (similar to a dormant “supercloud” project out of Cornell we previously noted)
The Supercloud Tournament
How will we resolve the battle over this disputed term? With a “supercloud” tournament! Here are the seeds:
Here is the bracket. Stay tuned for the results in this epic contest!