Mostly when I compare it with Amazon, I just would appreciate AWS because there are a lot of complexities on the IBM side when we create a direct connection. In Amazon, we secure our connection with the ISP. For direct connection, it is covered by AWS. On IBM's side, we are securing all our connections. For example, we highlight the IPv6 or VPN connection for direct connection. So, Amazon avoids such situations. Hence, instead of IBM, I just appreciate the efforts by AWS when it comes to the cloud. The solution's complexity and the need for the creation of direct connections are areas that IBM should focus on improving. There are a couple of things that need to be improved. Like, their virtualization, like, they use virtualization on their backend. So there are a lot of things, like, they don't support the required OS, or they don't support it because of which sometimes we need to consider migration. There are also a lot of complexities in Red Hat, Ubuntu, and CentOS that need to be improved. We also had raised the case with the support team on-site, but literally, what I am just finding here is that there are a lot of improvements needed in the architecture side of IBM. I don't think any new features are required since most of the cloud service providers are just using different terminologies to provide the same features or services. However, there is a need for more security in IBM compared to Azure and Amazon, which are the most secure ones since they put more on their security side.
It pretty much has all the features. There are many applications and features, and because of that, we need to walk through or study all the material and do hands-on. We need clear documentation or support for using IBM Public Cloud. The UI is fine, and everything else in terms of usability and configuring the cloud is also fine. The only thing is that when we're stuck or get an error, we need some technical support. Normally, for any cloud, we get a lot of information on the web, but that is missing in the case of IBM Public Cloud. We need some technical support documents. That is the only thing missing in IBM Public Cloud.
The documentation could be improved. Many things are available with the solution, but the documentation is not up to par. It will be challenging to implement if you do not have any experience.
While they have about 99% of what we need, the only exception, perhaps, was the push notification feature that was discontinued. They delayed the replacement product. In the meantime, I decided to go to FCM on Google, for doing this part. The push notification functionality has ben reintroduced now with the Event Notifications service, I took a quick look at it but it doesn't seem the same . There are some things that I haven't investigated because of time, however, I know they have the features. The support and most communication is only english speaking. With Google, I can receive notes in Spanish, for example. My developers are not well versed in English. Right now, I am the one that does the escalation of problems. For me, it's not a problem, however, my developers don't have direct contact with IBM since they don't speak English. IBM is pushing a lot Kubernetes as runtime infrastructure. There is another alternative which is Cloud Foundry, which is much easier than Kubernetes. I had been using it a lot but it is now being deprecated by IBM. The alternative they are suggesting is called Code Engine, however, it's not as mature as the easy Cloud Foundry. I was using a demo version of MySQL. They announced, very loudly, that they had already a full production MySQL version so I tried to migrate to the full-blown and it didn't have all the features. I found an issue with the new product but they took about three months to resolve it. The mobile dashboard could be better. They don't have a responsive solution. For example, sometimes I get a note, "Okay. You are above the limit of usage of this service." I would like to go into my cell phone and not have a screen where I see just one-quarter of the screen. Their mobile front end needs improvement. This is something that they lack right now.
CTO at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
May 10, 2022
In general, you have fewer options to configure in IBM Public Cloud than in AWS because Azure is another thing. This is one area for improvement in the solution. Another area for improvement in IBM Public Cloud is getting up-to-date information on how to set up everything. It's hard to find new documentation, and you'll end up getting it from the web, but once you get it, everything in terms of setting up the solution is pretty straightforward. What would be nice to see in the next release of IBM Public Cloud is increasing the capability of the serverless functions, for example, having the capability to run more RAM-intensive or more memory-intensive applications from the top. There are still some restrictions, but those are the same restrictions that are almost everywhere in other solutions. Those are pretty standard, but it would be great if there could be an improvement in that area.
Arquiteto de Soluções at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Mar 3, 2021
In Brazil, they only have one site, which is a big problem. They do not have a very good virtual network implemented, and the VPC is the most important feature that needs to be improved. They need to have more options for databases. The load-balancer and out-scaling need to be improved.
An improvement that I would like to see is better configuration capability. So far, our service is only large enough to demand one server. Their service and their website is okay in servicing our needs. We find it reliable and user-friendly. However, features wise, they could enhance their support interface and the report detail. I would like to know how much bandwidth I am actually using and maybe get better, more frequent report details. Doing small things like that can make the service better.
This solution can be very slow, which was a big problem for us. Deploying applications took a long time. I would like to see a more user-friendly deployment process in the next release of this solution. It was very complex.
I need a watch to describe the number of required improvements for the IBM Cloud service. We use the tools. It takes almost a day to configure each one of the work products. Maybe performance enhancers and reports could be better improved. If they do so, it would be better. Of all the drawbacks I saw, this would be the biggest enhancement.
IBM Cloud is a full-stack cloud platform that spans public, private and hybrid environments. Build with a robust suite of advanced data and AI tools, and draw on deep industry expertise to help you on your journey to the cloud.
The connectivity and speed of IBM Public Cloud are much lower compared to the competition.
Support could be improved.
The solution’s pricing could be improved.
Mostly when I compare it with Amazon, I just would appreciate AWS because there are a lot of complexities on the IBM side when we create a direct connection. In Amazon, we secure our connection with the ISP. For direct connection, it is covered by AWS. On IBM's side, we are securing all our connections. For example, we highlight the IPv6 or VPN connection for direct connection. So, Amazon avoids such situations. Hence, instead of IBM, I just appreciate the efforts by AWS when it comes to the cloud. The solution's complexity and the need for the creation of direct connections are areas that IBM should focus on improving. There are a couple of things that need to be improved. Like, their virtualization, like, they use virtualization on their backend. So there are a lot of things, like, they don't support the required OS, or they don't support it because of which sometimes we need to consider migration. There are also a lot of complexities in Red Hat, Ubuntu, and CentOS that need to be improved. We also had raised the case with the support team on-site, but literally, what I am just finding here is that there are a lot of improvements needed in the architecture side of IBM. I don't think any new features are required since most of the cloud service providers are just using different terminologies to provide the same features or services. However, there is a need for more security in IBM compared to Azure and Amazon, which are the most secure ones since they put more on their security side.
It pretty much has all the features. There are many applications and features, and because of that, we need to walk through or study all the material and do hands-on. We need clear documentation or support for using IBM Public Cloud. The UI is fine, and everything else in terms of usability and configuring the cloud is also fine. The only thing is that when we're stuck or get an error, we need some technical support. Normally, for any cloud, we get a lot of information on the web, but that is missing in the case of IBM Public Cloud. We need some technical support documents. That is the only thing missing in IBM Public Cloud.
The documentation could be improved. Many things are available with the solution, but the documentation is not up to par. It will be challenging to implement if you do not have any experience.
While they have about 99% of what we need, the only exception, perhaps, was the push notification feature that was discontinued. They delayed the replacement product. In the meantime, I decided to go to FCM on Google, for doing this part. The push notification functionality has ben reintroduced now with the Event Notifications service, I took a quick look at it but it doesn't seem the same . There are some things that I haven't investigated because of time, however, I know they have the features. The support and most communication is only english speaking. With Google, I can receive notes in Spanish, for example. My developers are not well versed in English. Right now, I am the one that does the escalation of problems. For me, it's not a problem, however, my developers don't have direct contact with IBM since they don't speak English. IBM is pushing a lot Kubernetes as runtime infrastructure. There is another alternative which is Cloud Foundry, which is much easier than Kubernetes. I had been using it a lot but it is now being deprecated by IBM. The alternative they are suggesting is called Code Engine, however, it's not as mature as the easy Cloud Foundry. I was using a demo version of MySQL. They announced, very loudly, that they had already a full production MySQL version so I tried to migrate to the full-blown and it didn't have all the features. I found an issue with the new product but they took about three months to resolve it. The mobile dashboard could be better. They don't have a responsive solution. For example, sometimes I get a note, "Okay. You are above the limit of usage of this service." I would like to go into my cell phone and not have a screen where I see just one-quarter of the screen. Their mobile front end needs improvement. This is something that they lack right now.
In general, you have fewer options to configure in IBM Public Cloud than in AWS because Azure is another thing. This is one area for improvement in the solution. Another area for improvement in IBM Public Cloud is getting up-to-date information on how to set up everything. It's hard to find new documentation, and you'll end up getting it from the web, but once you get it, everything in terms of setting up the solution is pretty straightforward. What would be nice to see in the next release of IBM Public Cloud is increasing the capability of the serverless functions, for example, having the capability to run more RAM-intensive or more memory-intensive applications from the top. There are still some restrictions, but those are the same restrictions that are almost everywhere in other solutions. Those are pretty standard, but it would be great if there could be an improvement in that area.
If they continue to add more additions, I'll be very happy with it. The product should offer more computing, similar to Amazon.
In Brazil, they only have one site, which is a big problem. They do not have a very good virtual network implemented, and the VPC is the most important feature that needs to be improved. They need to have more options for databases. The load-balancer and out-scaling need to be improved.
The initial setup and the pricing are areas that need improvement. I would like to see more support from the IBM specialists.
It could be more secure.
An improvement that I would like to see is better configuration capability. So far, our service is only large enough to demand one server. Their service and their website is okay in servicing our needs. We find it reliable and user-friendly. However, features wise, they could enhance their support interface and the report detail. I would like to know how much bandwidth I am actually using and maybe get better, more frequent report details. Doing small things like that can make the service better.
There is not a lot of support for this solution, which is something that needs to be improved.
The deployment can be a bit of a pain. There are a lot of packages and a lot of options and it can require complex configuration to get it right.
This solution can be very slow, which was a big problem for us. Deploying applications took a long time. I would like to see a more user-friendly deployment process in the next release of this solution. It was very complex.
The solution needs to be more autonomous. It should let the DL go to allow for more jobs on the cloud. It could have a better interface as well.
I need a watch to describe the number of required improvements for the IBM Cloud service. We use the tools. It takes almost a day to configure each one of the work products. Maybe performance enhancers and reports could be better improved. If they do so, it would be better. Of all the drawbacks I saw, this would be the biggest enhancement.