Virtual Computers - Is this a viable idea please?

[pinky]

Hi all,

Just looking for opinions on an idea I've had for a while now..

Firstly I need to quickly explain what a 'virtual' computer is for those not familiar with this newish technology; If you are familiar with VMWare you can skip the next couple of paragraphs.

To create a virtual computer you take a very powerful 'physical' server (host server) and share it's hardware resources so that more than one operating system can run simultaneously in the same box.

By partitioning the hard drive and sharing memory you can run ten or more operating systems in a single host server with each OS working completely separately from each other. There is no possibility of virus spread between each OS and if one OS crashes it does not affect other systems running on the host server.

For example you could run 4 Windows Server 2008, 3 Windows 7 Professional and a couple of Linux systems all in the same physical server without any loss in performance. Users login using Remote Desktop. Once logged in the user can install any software they like as they have full administrator rights.

It's as if the user had bought a new computer and plugged it in at home except it lives on the internet and is always on so they can login from anywhere in the world at any time.

The great thing about using this technology is.. you can use a really old, slow laptop for example to connect to a virtual PC and it will instantly become as fast and powerful as the CPU/memory in the host server!

THE IDEA
I'd like to rent personal virtual computers to web users on a monthly subscription basis (£15 - £20). I'd aim at Joe Bloggs and offer a choice of Windows operating systems. Users would have a free trial period to help them understand how things work before subscribing.

Later I'd like to offer this to businesses so they never have to spend on upgrading their office workstations. Thousands of virtual computers can be provisioned in minutes using VMWare technology all in the company's private virtual secure network.

I'd keep the techie bits to a minimum on the website and focus on the many advantages of renting a PC that is always on and available.

* Keeps everything separate from your home/office PC
* Login anytime, anywhere
* Instantly speeds up old computers
* Can be quickly restored if it crashes
* Install any software you like
* Unlimited backup space (using Livedrive etc.)
* Unlimited storage (NAS) - at a price
* Create any number of virtual PCs on your own secure network
* Upload photos/videos whilst on holiday

etc. etc.

So the question is; do you think this could sell to the general public?

I have a couple of domains I could use virtualcomputers.co.uk & mywebpc.co.uk Which would be best to use?

Time and money are precious at the moment so I don't want to waste either. I have the technical ability to write the website and make this work but money is tight!

I would appreciate any constructive advice/opinions as to wether this is a viable business idea folks

Thanks

 

[vjarjadian]

There are already services like this.

Im sure they are used otherwise they probably wouldnt be running long.


You will need... Money and time...

without that you can't afford to buy your rack space in a data center. and buy reliable servers... Dual Xeon servers will set you back a bit of money... As will your SAN and the licences to run windows. Lucky for you there are volume licensing...

 

[william04]

That's Looking better Idea, Though we must research many perspectives of this service before start-up.

 

[Paul_Rosser]

Have to agree, there are already firms offering this service either via vmware or citrix.

* Instantly speeds up old computers - Be careful of promising this as if the user is on a slow internet connection then this won't be true, the virtual host may be but without enough bandwidth they won't see that

* Can be quickly restored if it crashes - How often will you be taking snapshots ?

* Install any software you like - You really don't want to offer this, as it only takes one user to install a bandwidth hogging application and that screws things up for everyone else

* Unlimited backup space (using Livedrive etc.) - Nice idea but you have to make sure you price correctly as otherwise the users subscription cost may not cover your costs

* Unlimited storage (NAS) - at a price - As above, but you will need a SAN for multiple users

* Upload photos/videos whilst on holiday - Depending on broadband speeds this may end up frustrating users if their 2gig of videos takes hours to upload

You will also need to spend quite a bit setting this up as you will need space in a decent data center, a SAN, lots of bandwidth, backup device/media etc.

Whilst unlimited storage sounds great once you start looking at SAN pricing (your will need a SAN to support 1000's of users, NAS just won't do it) you will find this will make the monthly price very expensive.

For corporate use most cloud providers already offer the option of a public/private cloud where you can host all your custom apps/data in the private part and then utilise common apps via the public part.

Personally I would look to use someones else infastructure (Rackspace, Amazon cloud etc) and build your systems on top of that as this means you won't have to spend a lot to setup the system and once you get clients on-board your montly costs go up, but your increased revenue will also.

I've done a lot of work in moving large (500+ users) firms from the old server model to a hosted environment, so if you have any questions feel free to PM me.

 

[Quest Cloud Solutions Ltd]

Hi pinky,

Many companies already provide this and it is likely to be the future of IT... however if you don't have much money you'll seriously struggle to get a decent enough set-up running; our cloud infrastructure cost us several hundreds of thousands of pounds to set up, plus the rackspace cost and licensing costs every month.

If you are keen to get into that market, I'd perhaps suggest becoming a reseller or dealer of the services instead? At least that way you'll develop recurring revenue streams without the capital outlay, and then eventually you'll have enough money rolling in every month to warrant developing your own cloud platform (if you still wanted to?).

It is definitely a viable business as we already provide the services you're talking about, so if you would like any advice or information on it then feel free to PM me and I'll help in any way I can

Cheers

Ryan

 

[mit74]

As suggested this is already been done by many companies but the problem at the moment is that web networks just aren't fast enough and it's actually quite expensive once you start including all the software licences. Even on a local network there are latency issues with intensive tasks such as video playback , the solution being to have a kind of hybrid system that uses the client side graphics card and cpu but then this comletely defeats the purpose of having a dumb terminal. Of course the big benefit is that you don't need IT onsite so would probably benefit medium/larger business more than smaller.

 

[smo]

I dont believe home markets are the right target - to use their new spanking VM based system they need a computer to access it....what home user is going to buy and computer to access another computer and pay for it, when in reality the one they bought is more than adequate anyway. To add services like livedrive etc. on a VM is pointless to a home user as they can do they on their desktop/laptop anyway and in most cases for free!

Business is a different area, this is where virtualisation is great and definately the way forward but its more use for server environments than as an extra desktop etc.

 

[patrickpeer]

Hey, Pinky!!! I think you should not waste more time on thinking whether it is viable or not rather you should start working on this project, Virtual environment and clouds are the fastest growing technologies around the world and due to its large amount of user benefits, more and more users are being attracted towards it. virtualcomputers.co.uk would be better for you.

 

[fisicx]

I'm sitting here using Photoshop and Dreamweaver. I can take these with me anywhere are do my work. If I had to rely on your server and to access the software I'd grind to a halt.

You will also find that many companies use software to control their machines and equipment. Can't see them wanting to move it all to a server.

Anyone writing code will also want to keep it in house.

And how about all those who use their networks for office communications. They aren't going to outsource the telephones to a virtual server.

My family play loads of games - they aren't going to move umpteen gigs of software to a server either.

I agree that there is some benefit in a static office environment to using virtual machines but for the rest of the business world it's not a viable option.

 

[pinky]

Thanks everyone for your valuable feedback to my question, didn't expect such a quick and comprehensive response!

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is not financially viable to start something like this without an initial £100k for the required infrastructure.

I could start small by co-locating one server and building from there but the figures don't stack up. I'd have to charge about £30/mo which may be difficult to sell to Joe Bloggs. £15-£20/mo would be more realistic under current economic climate.

A server with Quad CPU, 32GB Ram and a couple of raided 2TB drives would be well over a grand but each virtual PC could have 250GB space, 4GB Ram and around 350GB bandwidth if co-located at RapidSwitch.

A quick calculation at £20/month:
8 x £20/mo = £160/mo subscription income
Co-Lo costs £40/mo
SPLA licenses around 8 x £7 = £56
Leaves £64/mo per server profit
It would take about 2 years to recoup initial server cost

A quick calculation at £30/month:
8 x £30/mo = £240/mo subscription income
Co-Lo costs £40/mo
SPLA licenses around 8 x £7 = £56
Leaves £146/mo per server profit
It would take about a year to recoup initial server cost (not too bad)

The only way to make it work for £20/mo would be to oversell by squeezing about 12 virtual PCs on each server. This may work but it would depend on how Joe Bloggs uses his PC on average and I wouldn't know that until I did it.

I may be able to save on the license cost if I ask users to activate the OS using their own key? I'm not sure if Joe Bloggs can use his own activation key more than once on different hardware tho - maybe someone can answer this..

It's such a shame as I can envisage a time where people carry a very powerful multi-tasking virtual PC around with them in the form of an iPad-like (maybe foldable) tablet. The tablet would only need to run Remote Desktop so would be inexpensive to produce and battery would last a long time - charged via solar panel or dockable charger.

I'll keep the domains just in case the future allows this idea to happen. Maybe in a couple of years we'll have 4G and server hardware costs will reduce.

To answer a couple of other points mentioned..

I could use Server 2008 instead of Windows 7 and make it look like Windows 7. Then configure the PC to stream videos via MS Media Services as publishing points so user can watch/share via a web browser or Windows Media Player.

Using other peoples infrastructure would not leave enough profit to be sustainable at £20/month for the virtual PC specifications I want to provide.

Unfortunately there would have to be certain restrictions concerning using virtual PCs for gaming or bandwidth hogging applications. Would require monitoring with admin alerts per virtual computer.

Thank you all once again for helping me think about this in a different light. Keep your comments flowing though as someone might hit on a way to make this work!

 

[fisicx]

It's such a shame as I can envisage a time where people carry a very powerful multi-tasking virtual PC around with them in the form of an iPad-like (maybe foldable) tablet. The tablet would only need to run Remote Desktop so would be inexpensive to produce and battery would last a long time - charged via solar panel or dockable charger.

Try running a large accouncts package using an ipad. Tyr doing some coding using a touch screen. Imagine trying to edit a 50Mb grapics file using a tablet and 3G connection.

How about 10 lunux controlled NC cutting machines or a suite of printers with a portable device linked to a server at the other end of the country.

These sorts of concepts only really work in nice stable office environments.

The chap that came rond the other day to do a building survey had a bespoke CAD program. He would have had to get connected using a dongle and open a ginormous application. As it was it took him about 10 minutes on his laptop - because he had already had the application installed.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I agree that there is some benefit in a static office environment to using virtual machines ....

Indeed. Citrix was around a long time before some fool muddied the waters with 'the cloud'.

As regards "the future of IT", I don't think it will be virtualised PCs, it will be connections to server-based applications from a large variety of devices - tablets, notebooks, smart phones. whatever.

That will leave PCs with the 'heavy lifting' apps - graphics, CAD, video etc, which, as you point out, really want to be run locally.

 

[fisicx]

In fact if you go back to the day of the mainframe and slave terminals this is exactly how things were done.

The only difference now is the way we connect and the distances between the nodes.

I've was working with a company whose devices were remote (on the sides of mountains). They ran off 12V car batteries for up to 3 months. Connection was very limited and only activated for very short periods. The data was squirted over a wi-fi connection and which was turned off when not in use. They didn't even have a 'sending' LED as the current drain was too high.

So while it all seems sensible in a modern office with LANs and WANs and nice shiny devices, there is a whole world of technology out there that isn't interested in virtual anything.

 

[pinky]

Thanks for your input!

These virtual PCs are not aimed at high end applications. More for average users who want to use it for playing music, videos, photos, spreadsheets, email, browsing web etc. Main benefit is keeping docs separate from main home PC acting also as a great backup solution for important data.

I agree the screen size would need to be as large as possible for typing via touchscreen..

 

[fisicx]

So it's the home market you would be targetting not business.

In which case it's not worth the effort. There is so much free storage available already and anyone buying a device gets a free OS so there's really no point in paying you anything.

Have you actually tried to edit a spreadsheet using an ipad? It's almost impossible.

 

[smo]

Thanks for your input!

These virtual PCs are not aimed at high end applications. More for average users who want to use it for playing music, videos, photos, spreadsheets, email, browsing web etc. Main benefit is keeping docs separate from main home PC acting also as a great backup solution for important data.

I agree the screen size would need to be as large as possible for typing via touchscreen..

But you can do all this and more on a laptop, and you can do 99% fo that on a tablet. Why you anyone want to use a VM @ £20-30/month when in a years subs you could buy an ipad or laptop and do away with the need for it, yet, you need a tablet or laptop to use the service anyway.

It just doesnt compute.