CHIMA DESMOND OPARA

CLOUD COMPUTING IN AMAZON WEB SERVICES,

MICROSOFT WINDOWS AZURE, GOOGLE APP
ENGINE AND IBM CLOUD PLATFORMS:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
CLOUD COMPUTING IN AMAZON WEB SERVICES, MICROSOFT WINDOW

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE

AZURE, GOOGLE APP ENGINE AND IBM CLOUD PLATFORMS:

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES

OF
A COMPARATIVE STUDY

NEAR EAST UNIVERSITY

By
CHIMA DESMOND OPARA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Master of Science
in
Computer Information Systems
NEU
2019

NICOSIA, 2019
CLOUD COMPUTING IN AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
MICROSOFT WINDOWS AZURE, GOOGLE APP
ENGINE AND IBM CLOUD PLATFORMS:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
NEAR EAST UNIVERSITY

By
CHIMA DESMOND OPARA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Master of Science
in
Computer Information System

NICOSIA, 2019
Chima Desmond OPARA: CLOUD COMPUTING IN AMAZON WEB
SERVICES, MICROSOFT WINDOWS AZURE, GOOGLE APP
ENGINE, AND IBM CLOUD PLATFORMS:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Approval of Director of Graduate School of

Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Nadire CAVUS

We certify this thesis is satisfactory for the award of the Degree of Masters of Science
in Computer Information Systems

Examining Committee in Charge:

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Fezile Özdamlı Committee Chairperson, Department of

Computer Information Systems, NEU

Prof.Dr. Nadire Çavuş Supervisor, Department of Computer

Information Systems, NEU

Asst.Prof.Dr. Damla Karagözlü Co-Supervisor, Department of Computer

Information Systems, NEU

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Hüseyin Bicen Department of Computer Education and

Instructional Technologies, NEU

Asst.Prof.Dr. Sezer Kanbul Department of Computer Education and

Instructional Technologies, NEU
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in
accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these
rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not
original to this work.

Name, Last name: Chima Desmond Opara

Signature:

Date:
To my amazing family…
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Prof.Dr. Nadire
Cavus, and co-supervisor Assist. Prof.Dr. Damla Karazoglu for their overall guidance and patience
throughout my research. The preparation of this Thesis would never have been possible without
their constructive suggestions, continual encouragement, and assistance.

I would also like to thank all my lecturers in Computer Information Systems department, who have
all made my studies here a success.

My profound gratitude goes to my parents Mr and Mrs Opara, for your love, sacrifice, and support.
Thank you very much for everything you have done for me in life. To my brother Nonso and sisters
Otito, Amarachi and Loretta, you mean the world to me. Thank you for being there for me and
encouraging always.

I am also thankful to all my friends, course mates, and well-wishers who have contributed during
this Thesis directly or indirectly. I appreciate you all.
 ABSTRACT

Cloud computing is a rapidly growing field in the Information technology sector. Recently there
are many emerging cloud platforms to choose from to run, deploy and maintain applications
over the cloud, offering a variety of services and tools at the disposal of a user. Cloud users are
faced with the dilemma of selecting a suitable platform that meets their specifications. The aim
of this study is to compare four widely adopted cloud platforms, AWS, Microsoft windows
azure, Google app engine and IBM cloud based on some commonly shared features such as
cloud service type, storage, database, security, service level agreements, programming
languages used, pricing, virtualization, mobile services offered, internet of things, data backup
and recovery and user interface to guide customers in selecting a suitable cloud platform. The
result of the comparison suggested that AWS fits the needs of large companies due to their vast
global reach, Microsoft windows azure is suitable for startups and best fits organizations using
Window servers, Google app engine is the most cost-efficient and suitable for developers of
web based software and applications, IBM cloud appealed to users because of its unique
virtualization and private cloud services. This study is beneficial for potential users such as
small mid-size enterprises, start-up developers and large companies for selecting a cloud
platform that meets their requirements.

Keywords: Cloud computing; cloud platforms; comparison; AWS; Microsoft window azure;
Google app engine; IBM cloud

i
 ÖZET

Bulut bilişim, Bilgi teknolojileri sektöründe hızla büyüyen bir alandır. Son zamanlarda, bulut
üzerinden uygulamaları çalıştırmak, dağıtmak ve bakımını yapmak için aralarından seçim
yapabileceğiniz ve kullanıcının emrine çeşitli hizmetler ve araçlar sunan birçok yeni bulut
platformu bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı; bulut hizmet türü, depolama, veritabanı,
güvenlik, hizmet düzeyi sözleşmeleri, programlama dilleri, fiyatlandırma, sanallaştırma,
sunulan mobil hizmetler, internet işleri, veri yedekleme kurtarma ve kullanıcı arayüzü uygun
bir bulut platformu seçiminde müşterilerine rehberlik etmek gibi yaygın olarak paylaşılan bazı
özelliklere dayanarak yaygın olarak kabul edilen dört bulut platformunu, AWS, Microsoft
windows masmavi, Google uygulama motoru ve IBM bulutunu karşılaştırmaktır.
Karşılaştırmanın sonucu, AWS'nin geniş küresel erişimleri nedeniyle büyük şirketlerin
ihtiyaçlarına uyduğunu, Microsoft Windows Azure'un yeni başlayanlar ve Windows
sunucularını kullanan kuruluşlar için en uygun olduğunu, Google uygulama motorunun web
tabanlı yazılım ve uygulama geliştiricileri için en uygun maliyetli ve uygun olduğunu, IBM
bulutun benzersiz sanallaştırma ve özel bulut hizmetleri nedeniyle kullanıcılara hitap ettiğini
ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışma; küçük orta ölçekli işletmeler, başlangıç geliştiriciler ve büyük
şirketler gibi potansiyel kullanıcılar için gereksinimlerini karşılayan bir bulut platformu
seçmeleri açısından faydalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Bulut bilişim; bulut platformları; karşılaştırma; AWS; Microsoft windows
masmavi; Google Uygulama Motoru; IBM bulut

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………… i
ÖZET………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….. vi
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………… vii
LIST OF BBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………… viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Background of the Study……………………………………………………… 1

1.2 Thesis Problem...…………………………………………………………….. 2

1.3 Aim of the Study……………………………………………………………... 3
1.4 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………… 3
1.5 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………….. 3
1.6 Overview of the Thesis………………………………………………………… 3

CHAPTER 2: RELATED RESEARCH…………………………………………... 4

2.1 Comparative Studies…………………………………………………………… 4
2.2 Performance and Service Analysis…………………………………………….. 7
2.3 Summary of Related Research…………………………………………………. 9

CHAPTER 3: THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………… 13

3.1 New Technological Development in IT Sector…………………………………… 13

3.2 Cloud Computing…………………………………………………………………. 13

3.2.1 History of Cloud Computing……………………………………………… 14
3.2.2 Cloud Computing Architecture……………………………………………. 15

iii
 3.2.3 Types of Cloud Computing Delivery Model …………………………….… 16
3.2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cloud Computing……………...……… 18
3.3 Most Popular Cloud Computing Platforms ……………………………………… 19
3.3.1 Amazon Web Services……………………..……………………………… 19
3.3.2 Microsoft Window Azure............................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Google App Engine………………………………………………………… 23

3.3.4 IBM Cloud………………………………………………………………….. 24

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………….. 26
4.1 Research Method…………………………………………………………… 26

4.2.1 Selected Cloud Computing Platforms……………………………….. 26

4.2.2 Main Comparative Features ………………………………………….. 28
4.3 Research Process................................................................................................. 30
4.4 Research Schedule................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS………………………………………. 35

5.1 Results………………………………………………...……………………… 35
5.2 Discussions…………………………………………………………………… 46

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………… 47

6.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 47
6.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………………… 48

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 49

APPENDICES

iv
Appendix 1: Approval Ethical Document………………………………………… 54
Appendix 2: Similarity Report……………………………………………………. 55

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Architectural design of cloud computing………………………………………….. 15

Figure 3.2: The types of cloud computing service with examples…………………………… 17
Figure 3.3: Main components of AWS …………………………………………………………….. 20
Figure 3.4: Components of Microsoft azure………………………………………………… 22
Figure 3.5: Structural design of Google App Engine………………………………….……… 24
Figure 3.6: Features of IBM cloud Platform………………………..………………………… 25
Figure 4.1: Enterprise Public Cloud Adoption……………............……..…................................ 27
Figure 4:2: Research Process……………………………………………………………………… 32
Figure 4.3: Research schedule of the study Gantt chart…………………………………………….. 33

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2:1: Summary of related research …………………………………………….. 9

Table 3:1: Cloud computing delivery model…............................................................... 18
Table 4.1: AWS vs Azure vs Google vs IBM Enterprise Scorecard………………… 27
Table 4.2: Selected features for comparison and authors…….……………………. 32
Table 4.3: Task schedule of the study………………………………………………. 32
Table 5.1: Comparison of cloud platforms………………………………………… 41

vii
 ABBREVIATIONS

AMI: Amazon Machine Image

APRANET: Advanced Research Projects Agency Network
AWS: Amazon Web Services
EC2: Elastic Compute Cloud
GAE: Google App Engine
HPC: High Performance Computings

IAAS: Infrastructure as a service

MWA: Microsoft Windows Azure
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technologies
PAAS: Platform as a Service
SAAS: Software as a service
SLA: Service Level Agreement

SQS: Simple Queque Service

S3: Simple Storage Service
VM: Virtual Machine
VPN: Virtual Private Network
WAN: Wide Area Network
YOY: Year over Year

viii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter focuses on the background of the study, problem statement for this study, the aim
of the study, the significance of the study, the limitation of the study and the overview of all the
chapters in this Thesis.

1.1. Background of the Study

Cloud Computing has become a fast growing IT architecture paradigm. Most companies, small
and mid-size enterprises as well as individuals can adopt a cloud computing platform to store a
large number of data which is easily accessible via the internet from any location (Purohit, 2017;
Dordevic et al., 2014; Deshmukh and Mishra, 2018).

Many major stakeholders in the IT sector have invested big in cloud computing technologies by
creating their public servers, including Google, Microsoft and Amazon. Such businesses
intermittently release fresh characteristics and versions of their cloud services (Hofer and
Karagiannis, 2011).

Cloud service variety contributes to a feasible issue. How well does a cloud service function
compared to other services? Responding to the above issue will profit both cloud clients and
vendors. This response may assist a potential user pick the right cloud platform which fits their
performance and price requirements. For example, one platform can be selected for memory-
intensive apps and another for computing-intensive apps. Responses like this may lead to the
desired path for development for a cloud service provider, notwithstanding the real significance
of comparing cloud service providers, several research were carried out over this subject. The
dilemma is that each provider has its own peculiar methods of doing stuff, so figuring a
commonality requires a lot of thinking (Li et al., 2010).

1
Nowadays, businesses and individuals intending to use cloud platforms are faced with a wide
range of potential cloud options. Due to the vast number of alternatives, it is difficult to guide
themselves and find a better option. Cloud solutions deliver the best possible service to their
clients. The advantages of these services must be evaluated based on the suitable needs of a
client (Giovanoli, 2019).

In this Thesis study, four popular adopted cloud platform namely Amazon web services,
Microsoft windows azure, Google app engine and IBM cloud compared based on the following
considered features: Cloud service type, storage, database, security, service level agreements
(SLA), programming languages used, pricing, virtualization, mobile, internet of things, data
backup and recovery and user interface for the comparison of cloud platforms, guide a potential
user in selection and give suggestions of where each platforms fits better.

1.2.Thesis Problem
There are numerous cloud platforms with varying storage capabilities, attributes, mechanism
and pricing methods. The major issue faced recently, is that potential users do not know which
cloud platform meets their specification, therefore selecting the suitable cloud platforms
becomes a dilemma for them (Deshmukh and Mishra, 2018). With the vast number of cloud
platforms readily accessible to those parties keen on it, there might be different criteria for
choosing a specific cloud platform. Those criteria rely on a variety of logics in terms of
efficiency, the capacity of a company, expenditure, security and storage requirements (Purohit,
2017). Therefore it is paramount not to only know the advantages and disadvantages of cloud
platforms and the criteria for choosing a cloud platform but to also compare the four widely
adopted cloud platforms based on some common features with similarities and differences to
guide business enterprises, companies and individuals choose of the suitable platform for
startups, hybrid solutions, large organizations and cost effective cloud platforms for potential
users.

2
1.3.Aim of the Study
The aim of this study is to compare four popular cloud platforms namely Amazon web services,
Microsoft window azure, Google app engine, and IBM clouds based on twelve selected features
to help small and medium sized enterprises or businesses and potential users make a choice of
cloud platforms to adopt.

1.4. Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is to guide business enterprise, companies and individual choice
of suitable cloud platform selection based on some common features that satisfies potential users
need in terms of cost efficiency and performance as well as possibly assisting a provider to
recognize its underperforming services compared to other strong competition.

1.5. Limitations of the Study

All the data used for the research are secondary and as such will be restricted to previous studies,
high prestige journals. This study is limited to the four chosen platforms and the twelve selected
features for the comparison.

1.6. Overview of the Thesis

This thesis consists of six chapters, which are Introduction, Related research, Theoretical
framework, Methodology, Results and Discussions, and Conclusions and Recommendations

Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter of the whole thesis work, outlining the thesis problem, aim
of the study, significance of the research and the limitations of the study.

Chapter 2 is a literature review of previous studies carried out and related to the present
research.

Chapter 3 is the theoretical framework detailing cloud computing overview, including the
currently available cloud computing services architecture and cloud computing platforms.

3
Chapter 4 outlines the method used for the comparative analysis of the cloud computing
platforms as well as the main features of cloud services used for comparative analysis.

Chapter 5 presents the results and discusses the comparison to other studies missing gap

Chapter 6 draws a conclusion on the study as well as makes recommendation for interested
future researchers of cloud computing platforms comparison.

4
 CHAPTER 2

RELATED RESEARCH

This chapter looks at the related research on cloud computing platforms comparison involving
Amazon web services, Microsoft windows azure, Google app engine and IBM clouds conducted
by various authors, the findings from their study are summarized and the missing gap which
could be pointed out.

2.1 Comparative Studies

BV et al. (2013) compared two leading cloud platforms AWS and Microsoft azure. They
focused their study on three important cloud features, storage, type of cloud and compute service
provided. They detailed their comparison in a tabular form with all mentioned features as well
as some example of case studies for users and made recommendations. They concluded that
Amazon RDS is charged depending on the deployment method which are Standard and multi-
AZ while SQL azure is charged by the storage space used. Both AWS and Azure use all three
cloud service type.

Bari et al. (2015) carried out a study and compared AWS, Microsoft azure and Rackspace. They
focused their comparison on cost and performance of these platforms. They conducted an
experiment of small, medium and large computation using memory and CPU for the cost while
they calculated the response to time in the experiment for performance using PHP SDK. They
result for their analyses concluded that AWS did have the better cost plans for small and medium
scale computing, on the other hand Microsoft had an advantage when it came to large scale
computing. Rackspace proved costlier across for the three scenarios, as such AWS was found
to be more value-effective answer in the present condition.

5
Purohit (2017) carried out a research to compare and analyze some cloud service providers
which included AWS, Microsoft azure, Google IBM clouds, Rackspace, VMware, Red Hat and
oracle cloud based on some distinctive features in those platforms such as computing and
encryption method, storage, networking and properties, and sales customer support. In his
logical analysis, he used a table to illustrate where these cloud platforms are more fitting to be
used and giving examples of the users. His analysis concluded by emphasizing on duty of the
customer to evaluate these services before selecting a platform satisfactory to them.

Hyseni and Ibrahimi (2017) conducted a research that compared the cloud computing platforms
in Amazon and Google based on seven available services provided by both which were
computing, storage, database, networking, management tools, development tools and
security/identity. Their research concluded according to the compared features that customers
should prioritize AWS cloud platform because it has more services available even though
Google platform provides a cheaper rate per instance.

Aljamal et al. (2018) carried out a survey on the high performance computing (HPC) of four
popular cloud platforms according to them, which were Microsoft azure, Amazon, Google and
oracle. They reviewed the services on offer and comparative advantages of each of the selected
cloud platforms to help customers of HPC apps. They features used for their study are VM types,
batch processing, storage, migration tools, developer tools, management tools, Pricing
methodology, policy and discount. Their study concluded that not all cloud platforms might
satisfy customers’ specification but most of them provide a lot of services and facilities to retain
and captivate new and old users. However Amazon and Microsoft prove to be more popular
among users due to their prominence.

Deshmukh and Mishra (2018) compared, AWS, Microsoft azure, Google and IBM cloud
platforms based on their advantages and disadvantages. Their study was focused on helping
customers to choose the best cloud platform that meets their specification. They concluded that
most platforms concentrate on offering various services, a few on concentrate on offering
services at minimal price and others offering excellent security, confidentiality and integrity of
data which are more vital to customers.

6
Dutta and Dutta (2019) conducted an analyses of top three leading cloud platforms according to
them which were AWS, Microsoft and Google. Their analyses focused on what these platforms
provided in regards to storage, compute and management tools. In their analyses they concluded
that even though AWS has the higher market share, it would be inaccurate to assume it offers
the best services, this is because Microsoft and Google platforms certainly have additional
benefits for services and better security mechanisms. They gave a recommendation for
organizations to use more than one platform to minimize risk.

Laxmaiah and Sharma (2019) analyzed three well known cloud platforms which included
Google, AWS and Microsoft azure. They focus of their analyses was to compare these platforms
based on the following features, cloud services, platform supported, language supported,
integrated DB support and SLA. They concluded from their analyses that each platform has a
well-defined features for users. Their paper is going to have an extension of Microsoft azure
practical implementation.

2.2 Performance and Service Analysis

Dordevic et al. (2014) conducted a study, comparing two commonly used cloud computing
platforms Microsoft azure and Amazon Web services. Their study was focused on the
performance and services comparison of both platforms. They carried out a test in the same
virtual machine on Ubuntu Linux Server 14.04 LTS 64-bit for micro instances where
performance was tested based on the features the researchers chose for the test which are Price
per hour, CPU cores, disk space and RAM. Their result concluded that in regards to
performance, both platforms are quite comparable, although the result gives a slight edge to
Microsoft azure if it were only based on CPU and disk space.

Wahid and Banday (2018) conducted a study, comparing AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google
based on the following parameters CPU, memory and Price. Their study was focused on helping
customers in India in decision making of cloud platform in regards to cost and performance.
They result of their analyses concluded that AWS was the best choice among the mentioned

7
platforms due to its range of machine type as well as broad available cost plans, thus making it
easier for user to choose an option. While Microsoft and Google were fast thriving and providing
a range of quality and affordable cost plans, the analyses was in complete favor of AWS.

Kaur et al. (2018) compared AWS and IBM cloud by testing both in similar circumstances,
utilizing their various examples. Their study focused in terms of performance and safety
measures of these platforms. They compared both platforms based on the safety mechanism
used and the cost price for their cases using a Phoronix test suite. Their result concluded that
AWS does have a higher level of acceptance than almost all other offered cloud services and
it’s primarily popular to new customers while IBM is innovating but still has a longer way to
get there. AWS also has an exceptional RAM speed than IBM. Finally in security aspect, AWS
has a more strict approach while IBM is a little behind in this regards.

Tajadod et al. (2012) investigated and compared main features of Microsoft azure and AWS
cloud platform that offer security focused on data integrity, availability and confidentiality.
Their result showed that both adopt various security frameworks, Microsoft is assured security
via its azure platform framework while Amazon via its Amazon elastic compute framework.
Nonetheless, Microsoft’s cryptographic cloud storage proved to be a significant distinguishing
feature to Amazon due to the level of complexity as well as the reason it ensures a higher rate
of data security and privacy. They concluded Microsoft simply offers a higher level of data
protection than AWS.

Li et al. (2010) designed a systematic comparator called cloudcmp to assist users in choosing
a cloud platform based on the performance and cost price. They selected and compared four
popular cloud platforms at the time of their research, which were AWS, Microsoft azure, Google
and Rackspace cloud. They focused their study on helping users to easily make a choice of the
cloud platform that meets their demands and wants. They main features used for their
experiment were elastic compute cluster, persistent storage, intra-cloud network and wide area
network. Their result concluded that AWS and Rackspace had the same price range even though
AWS was thirty percent costly per hour and instance while Microsoft and Google were provided
higher performance but were fifty percent more costly which is due to having fast CPU. They

8
recommended adding others cloud platforms to the cloudcmp system in the future for user to
have a wider selective option.

2.3 Summary of Related Research

Table 2.1 below shows a summary of the related research discussed in this chapter. It shows the
authors of the research, the aim of the research, cloud platforms compared, features compared,
the comparison type which were classified as quantitative or qualitative, the conclusion and
recommendations of their research. This study seeks to widen the gap in understanding in
(Purohit, 2017) beyond the features such as computing, networking and storage mechanism of
which were compared. The study seeks to widen the gap in Deshmuhk and Mishra, (2018)
understanding beyond the advantages and disadvantages of the selected cloud platforms and
also widen the gap in Laxamaiah and Sharma, (2019) beyond the features such as cloud services,
platform supported, languages supported, Integrated database and SLA.

9
 Table 2:1: Summary of related research

AUTHOR AIM CLOUD FEATURES COMPARISON CONCLUSION

(YEAR) PLATFORMS COMPARED TYPE
COMPARED

Purohit To give a detailed AWS Compute, Quantitative Emphasized the

(2017) description of the Microsoft azure storage, duty of customers
features offered Google networking, to evaluate these
by the cloud IBM cloud services before
platforms listed. Rackspace selecting a
VMware satisfactory
Red Hat platform to them
Oracle cloud

Hyseni To compare the AWS Compute, Quantitative Potential

and cloud computing Google storage, customers should
Ibrahimi platforms offered database, prioritize AWS
(2017) by AWS and networking, over Google
Google management because it has
and more available
development services and
tools provides a
cheaper rate per
instance

Ajamal et To review the Microsoft azure VM types, Quantitative Not all cloud
al. (2018) services on offer AWS storage, platforms satisfies
and comparative Google migration, customers
advantages of Oracle development, specification, but
selected platforms and AWS and
to help users of management Microsoft azure
HPC apps. tools, pricing, proved popular
policy & among customers
discount due to their
prominence

10
 Table 2.1: Continue

Kaur et al. To compare AWS Security Qualitative AWS proved to

(2018) security IBM cloud measures, cost have a higher
mechanism and price level of security
cost prices in measures,
place in the acceptance and
mentioned cloud primarily popular
platforms

to new customers
than IBM cloud

Wahid To help customers AWS CPU, Memory, Qualitative AWS was the best
and in India with Microsoft azure Price choice among
Banday decision making Google mentioned
(2018) of cloud platforms platforms due to
in regards to cost the range of
and performance machine type and
available cost
plans

Deshmuk To help customers AWS Advantages and Qualitative All cloud

h and choose the best Microsoft azure Disadvantages platforms have
Mishra platform that Google distinct services,
(2018) meets their IBM cloud up to customer to
specification decide which
meets
specification

Laxmaiah To compare these Google Cloud services, Qualitative Each platform has
and platforms based AWS Language a well-defined
Sharma on the listed Microsoft azure supported, features to meet
(2019) features to help integrated DB users specification
users’ options. support, SLA

11
 Table 2.1: Continue

Dutta and To analyze these AWS Storage, Quantitative Organizations

Dutta platforms Microsoft azure compute, and should use more
(2019) provided in Google management than one
regards to the tools platforms to
listed features. minimize risk

Bari et al. To compare these AWS Cost, and Qualitative AWS was found
(2015) platforms in Microsoft azure performance to be more cost
regards to the Rackspace effective answer
listed features with the present
condition

Dordevic To compare both Microsoft azure Performance, Qualitative Microsoft azure

et al. platforms in AWS service and has a slight edge
(2014) regards to comparison based on CPU and
performance and disk space
services offered

BV et al. To compare both AWS Storage, Quantitative Both provide the

(2013) platforms in Microsoft azure compute, and three cloud
regards to the type of cloud service type
listed features

Tajadod To compare both Microsoft azure Security Qualitative Microsoft simply

et al. platforms security AWS mechanism offers higher level
(2012) mechanism of data security
than AWS

Li et al. To design a AWS Compute, Quantitative Microsoft and

(2010) comparator to Microsoft azure storage, network Google provided
help users choose Google performance higher
a cloud platform Rackspace performance but
based on the listed are more costly
features than AWS and
Rackspace

12
 CHAPTER THREE

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter gives an overview of cloud computing, in terms of definition, history, architectural
design, important characteristics, types of delivery model and the four popular platforms chosen
for this study are explained.

3.1. New Technological Development in Information Technology Sector

Across the world, technology is changing lives of people and businesses every day with new
innovations on the market to ease the way people do things on a daily basis. Several
organizations came up with better, quick, and minimal cost innovation to deal with the problems
of storing data and reliability concerns to customers which is generally called cloud computing
today. In early 2000’s, a number of US businesses were already adopting cloud computing to
access services on request, however recently this technology has gained attention in other
countries. Users store data and access it via the internet and the cloud platform domain the
adopted (Chandel et al., 2018).

Cloud computing has completely changed the IT sector owing to its rapid growth and demand.
The rapid increase in deployed cloud computing has led to the establishment of large data
centres involving a massive variety of sophisticated server (Kaur et al., 2018).

3.2. Cloud Computing

There are plenty definitions of cloud computing by numerous researchers but the generally
acknowledged one is from the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (Wahid and
Banday, 2018) which defined cloud computing as

“The framework for enabling simple, on-demand network connection to a separate system of
computing resources (For example network servers, storage application, and services) that
can be distributed and released rapidly with restricted managerial intervention or client
interference” (Mell and Grance, 2011: p. 34).

13
The essential features which differentiate cloud computing from conventional computing
alternatives have been recognized (Wang et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010; Hofer and
Karagiannis, 2011) typically include:

 Design on scalability and agile facilities.

 Buy on-demand service delivery and level of service incentives.
 Pay for the use of system resources without the upfront loyalty of cloud customers.
 Shared and multi-tenancy.
 Each and every device is accessible over the Internet.

3.2.1. History of Cloud Computing

Cloud computing has gone through a rapid change in history from the 1960’s to the present day
and possibly in the distant future.

J.C.R Licklider in the late 1960’s, the man credited with facilitating the advancement of
APRANET, who had a vision to see people globally connected and having access to data via
the internet anywhere, came up with the concept of Intergalactic computer Network which is
equivalent to the internet today (Narula et al.,2015).

Later in 1970, virtualization was launched, running of multiple operating system concurrently
in a confined setting with software such as VMware, thus the birth of virtual machines. By 1990,
telecoms companies began offering VPN connections providing users with shared connectivity
to existing infrastructure (Neto, 2019).

Professor Ramnath Chellapa in Dallas, USA in 1997, computing as "A computing model in
which the limitation of computing will be determined by economic logic instead of technical
limits only"(Agarwal et al., 2016).

Amazon became the pioneer of cloud computing in the early 2000’s , providing services through
Elastic compute cloud and simple storage service, as well as introducing the pay as use model
to individuals and companies at large. Google became a strong rival in the sector of ecommerce

14
in late 2000’s, by 2006, Google released its first cloud-based service called Google Docs, which
allows a user to save and share documents precisely with various users (Agarwal et al., 2016).

3.2.2 Cloud Computing Architecture

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a well prominent organization
worldwide because of its research in the area of IT. In figure 1, NIST illustrated the five
important characteristics, the three services and four ways clouds are deployed in the
architectural design of cloud computing (Sharma et al., 2016).

Figure 3.1: Architectural design of cloud computing (Sharma et al., 2016)

15
There are five very important characteristics of cloud computing as shown in Figure 3.2 which
clearly points out the relationship as well as contrast against the conventional computing.

 Broad Network Access: It has network-wide capacities and connect directly by normal
system (Kapil et al., 2017).
 Rapid elasticity: Its services are flexible and provided quickly (Alam et al., 2015).
 Measured Service: The systems in cloud computing manage and enhance the use of
resources by offering a capacity measurement to the model of the services such as
storage, processing and bandwidth (Alam et al., 2015)
 On-demand-self-service: Computational services are offered via the internet at a
particular moment with no communication depending on the customer's necessity. Users
can access information, apps or another resources in cloud services with the assistance
of a just a web server, disregarding a software and hardware (Kapil et al., 2017).
 Resource Pooling: It depends on customer requirements, cloud services assets are
collected to serve various customers (Sahu and Pateriya, 2013).

3.2.3 Types of Cloud Computing Delivery Models

Generally, cloud computing is classified into three types namely Software as a service (SaaS),
Platform as a service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a service (IaaS). Figure 3.3, below shows the
type of cloud services with some examples and their respective main users (Čandrlić, 2019):

16
 Figure 3.2: The types of cloud computing service with examples (Čandrlić, 2019)

 Software as a Service (SaaS): Provides services where by users don't have to handle
any operating system installation and setup instead it is managed by the cloud service
provider (Sahu and Pateriya, 2013). Examples include Customer Relationship
Management (CRM), Email, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Games.
 Platform as a Service (PaaS): This service allows users to develop a software using the
cloud platform supported tools and settings. The user also controls the software
installation and configuration (Sarma et al., 2019). Examples include Streaming,
Decision support, web server, development tools (Al-Sayyed et al., 2019)
 Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS): This offers company entry to essential internet
design, like storage room, servers, and connections, without having to buy and manage
this internet-world facilities itself. The major benefit about is that users would only have
to pay for the period of time the service is being used by them (Jadeja and Modi, 2012).
It can be used to prevent purchasing, housing, and handling fundamental operating

17
 systems service parts, swiftly measure back and forth to satisfy demand. E.g. Amazon
EC2 (Sahu and Pateriya, 2013). Examples include Virtual Machine, Network, Servers,
Storage, load balancer (Al-Sayyed et al., 2019).

Table 3:1 below shows cloud computing model, services available for each, people who use this
model, why the use it and examples of cloud platforms that offer such models

Table 3:1: Cloud computing delivery model (Kimmy, 2013)

MODELS SERVICES USED BY WHY USE IT EXAMPLES
AVAILABLE

SAAS Email, office Business users To complete Salesforce.com,

automation, business tasks Animato, Oracle
website, testing, on demand,
wiki, virtual, Windows Office
desktop, blog, Live
CRM

PAAS Services, Developers Create or Google App

applications test, deploy Engine, Microsoft
development, applications Azure, Coghead,
integration, and and services Force.com, Yahoo,
deployment for users Developer
Network

IAAS Create platforms System Create Amazon EC2,

for service and manager platform for Simple Storage
application test. service and Service (S3), Go-
Development, application grid
migration and test,
deployment integration,
and
deployment

18
3.2.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cloud Computing
With the rapid growth of cloud computing in the IT sector, many businesses are adopting it,
because of its numerous benefits. As with many new technologies, cloud computing has many
advantages and a few disadvantages.

Xue and Xin, (2016) explained how cloud computing enables businesses to be more flexible by
accessing data via internet from any location at any given time, offers reduced cost on pay as
you use basics, scalability is simple with the help of virtualization and boosts agility by
providing infrastructure, backup and recovery, and software management to businesses or
organizations adopting it.

Kapil et al. (2017) highlighted a vital functional disadvantage of cloud computing which
happens to be the shortage of integration among cloud platforms. This has happened primarily
because companies have designed their clouds and kept the design, layout, and system private,
although several cloud platforms advertise 99 percent or higher service accessibility of their
product quality, most apps are not properly equipped for the utilization of the cloud.

3.3. Most Popular Cloud Computing Platforms

There are many cloud computing platforms with plenty of advantages. This study considers four
popularly adopted platforms namely Amazon web services, Microsoft windows azure, Google
app engine and IBM cloud.

3.3.1 Amazon Web services

This is provided by Amazon which was launched in 2006, known today as the pioneer in cloud
computing. Amazon web services offers on request cloud services to different kind of users such
as firms, organizations, business enterprises. Customers mostly use the pay as you go option for
available services which allows them to completely manage the virtual servers with assistance
via the web (Swedha and Dubey, 2018).

19
AWS offers a vast array of cloud services that helps in the improvement of complex apps. It
also allows the deployment of applications on a global scale at a minimal cost. The user just
pays for the services used on a fixed rate (Ferriman et al., 2015).

Examples of some popular clients of AWS are US Navy, Unilever, Kellogg’s, and Siemens
(Purohit, 2017).

Figure 3.4 shows the components of AWS which are Monitoring, Management, Tools,
Networks, Processing, Content Delivery, Messaging, Payments, On-Demand workforce and the
main features which are compute, storage and database available

Your Custom Applications and Services

Monitoring Management Tools Isolated Networks

Amazon AWS Management AWS Toolkit Amazon Virtual Private

CloudWatch Console for Eclipse Cloud

Messaging Payments On-Demand

Parallel Content
Processing Delivery Workforce
Amazon
Amazon Simple Amazon
Amazon Elastic Amazon Flexible
Queue Service Mechanical
MapReduce CloudFront (S3) Paymentts Turk
Service

Compute Database
Storage
Amazon Elastic Compute Amazon RDS
Cloud (EC2) Amazon Simple storage
Service (S3) Amazon SimpleDB
Elastic Load Balancing
-AWS Import/Export Amazon EC2 images for Oracle
-Auto Scaling
MySQL and other databases
Figure 3.3: Main components of AWS (Understanding Amazon Web Services (AWS) |
OracleApps Epicenter, 2019)

20
 The architecture of Amazon web services is primarily made up of four parts: Elastic Compute
Cloud (EC2), Simple Storage Service (S3), SimpleDB, and Simple Queue Service Amazon
(SQS) (Padhy et al., 2011; Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019).

 Elastic Compute Cloud Amazon (EC2): This allows a user to run numerous virtual servers
on demand. It is scalable, efficient, protected and significantly affordable, as a user only
pays for tools used (Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019).
 Simple Storage Service Amazon (S3): This provides a flexible asset space for storing any
data easily accessible over the internet. It is also used to back up and archive files (Sweda
and Dubey, 2018).
 Amazon SimpleDB: This is a form of non-relational database that enables a user to store
data. It uses a simple read/write command from the Application program interface
(Ampaporn and Gertphol, 2015).
 Simple Queue Service Amazon (SQS): This is a service which passes a message among
any cloud components (Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019).

3.3.2 Microsoft Windows Azure

This is the major part of Microsoft cloud computing platform which was launched in 2010, it
offers users with tools and platforms to create, operate and execute web applications on a huge,
worldwide network.

Microsoft Windows Azure provides high performance, flexibility, and low service cost for IA
AS, SAAS, and PAAS. It is accessible in over one hundred and forty countries and twenty eight
regions (Al-Sayyed et al., 2019).

Migration of virtual machines on public cloud is simple because Microsoft windows azure is
developed in windows server and shares almost the same softwares and application. Examples
of some popular clients of Microsoft azure are Mazda, NBC sports, Xerox and FreshDirect
(Purohit, 2017).

Figure 3.6 below shows the components of Microsoft azure which are compute, Data
management, networking, Developer and IT services, identity and access, mobile, backup,

21
messaging and integration, compute assistance, performance, big compute and big data, media
and commerce. This components help a user to explore available applications and services.

Figure 3.4: Components of Microsoft azure

22
The five essential features of Microsoft windows azure are: Compute, Storage, Content Delivery
Network (CDN), SQL Azure and Fabric controller. (Padhy et al, 2011, Tajadod et al., 2012;
Laxmaiah & Sharma 2019)

 Compute: This feature enables applications and services to be implemented on window

azure platform. Compute in azure consists of web role for implementing web based apps,
worker role for implementing of codes and Virtual machine for the migration of applications
on window servers to azure (Tajane et al., 2018).
 Storage: It enables the storing of any size of data for a duration, there are three types of
storage which are, blobs, table and queues. Blobs stores extensive tons of unorganized data,
it’s applicable to binary objects. Tables allows applications to function in an organized
manner. Queues allow web based applications to connect with code implemented by a user
(Tajane et al., 2018).
 Content Delivery Network (CDN): It improves overall quality by indexing content at
places nearest to users. It creates accessibility since users have easy access to obtained data
everywhere from the internet (Tajadod et al, 2012).
 SQL Azure: It offers data storage capacities comparable to Amazon simple storage service.
It enables relational query to be rendered towards data in storage that can be organized,
semi-organized or unorganized, users get connected in a number of different form like
ADO.NET, PHP and Open Database Connectivity (Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019).
 Fabric controller: This controls, oversee servers and organizes Microsoft windows azure
applications and database development (Verma et al., 2018).

3.3.3 Google App Engine

This cloud platform is provided by Google was launched in 2011.Google App Engine is mainly
a platform as service that allows a user to develop and execute applications through Google
framework, thus removes the need for expensive acquisition and maintaining of database, as it
is managed by Google (Tabot and Hamada, 2014; Narula et al, 2015 ).

23
The objective of GAE development is to boost the online presence by allowing several users
create apps for the web. It does not charge anything to get started, charges are made based on
the use of storage and bandwidth by a user at an affordable price range (Laxamaiah and Sharma,
2019).

It provides resources for data storage management, page monitoring, and asset utilization,
testing and logging. It offers both PaaS and SaaS services. PaaS service such as GAE while
SaaS services such as Gmail, Google doc, calendar and Google drive (Padhy et al, 2011).

Examples of some popular clients of Google cloud are Snapchat, Coca-Cola, Motorola and
Airbus (Purohit, 2017).

Figure 3.7 below, shows the structure of Google app engine which include client capabilities
containing the tools available for a user, cloud computing services and the support services in
place.

Google Web Toolkit (GWT)

Mashup Editor Google Gears

Client
Google Gadgets Others
Capabilities

Cloud
Integration

Google App Engine (GAE)

Computing Python & Django

Services
Dynamic Scalable Runtime

GAE Datastore GData

Support Google Accounts

Services Social Graph API Others

Figure 3.5: Structural design of Google App Engine (Laxmaiah and Sharma, 2019)

24
3.3.4. IBM Clouds

This is a cloud computing platform provided by information technology company IBM, which
was launched in 2011. It offers both IaaS and PaaS as service to give a unified background IaaS
provides services such as compute, storage, and networking over the web while PaaS help users
build, maintain, operate and utilise different sorts of application. It became a force by acquiring
companies providing cloud management and deployment services. It is widely regarded for
customer relationship services, which includes a range of cloud users such as business and
healthcare cloud (Koneru et al., 2018).

Examples of some popular clients of IBM clouds are Channel Pace, Silver Hook, and Jelastic
(Purohit et al., 2017)

Figure 3.9 below shows the components of IBM cloud, the console for developing, displaying
and controlling cloud assets, identity and access management safely verifies a user for service
on the platform and manages accessibility to assets regularly on the cloud, catalog consists of
the services offered by IBM, Search and Tagging is for sorting and defining assets, Provisioning
layer is for controlling and managing resources and Billing ensures the correct use of pricing
options and safe security from identity fraud.

25
Figure 3.6: Features of IBM cloud Platform (IBM Cloud Docs, 2019).

26
 CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the method adopted for the comparison of the chosen cloud platforms,
comparison process, why the four cloud computing platforms were selected, the main features
used for the comparison, the research process and research schedule.

4.1 Research Method

The research method used for this study is comparative method. The chosen features of the
selected cloud computing platforms are compared by the author under the guidance of the
supervisors. The cloud computing platforms were analysed and selected based on the features
offered as services for users available on the website of the selected cloud platforms.

4.2 Selected Cloud Computing Platforms

The four major cloud computing platforms used for this research are Amazon web services
(AWS), Microsoft windows azure (MWA), Google App Engine (GAE), and IBM cloud.

AWS and Microsoft windows azure were selected because they are the top two in terms of
market shares and commonly adopted cloud platforms due to their prominence and the large
number of services offered by them (Ajamal et al. 2018).

Google App Engine was selected because of its special PaaS, especially in terms of mobile
apps and learning (Tabot and Hamada, 2014).

IBM cloud was selected because it’s a fast growing cloud platform as shown in Table 4.3.
RightScale conducted an annual survey in 2018 for cloud computing adoption which involved
997 tech experts from a wide range of enterprises and users of cloud which included AWS,
Azure, Google and IBM. Figure 4.1 shows the result of the survey in percentages of respondents
running applications, experimenting and plan to use the cloud platforms. AWS and Azure leads,
while Google and IBM are the two closest competitors to them (Dignan, 2019)

27
 AWS 68% 15% 7%

Azure 58% 22% 8%

Google Cloud 19% 26% 15%

IBM cloud 15% 13% 10%

Cloud on AWS 12% 16% 16%

Oracle Cloud 10% 12% 11% Running applications

Experimenting
Alibaba Cloud 3% 5% Plan to use

Figure 4.1: Enterprise public cloud adoption (Dignan, 2019)

A survey conducted in 2018 by Rightscale cloud report on Enterprise Scorecard adoption of

AWS, Azure, Google and IBM. Table 4.3 below, shows there is competition within this four
popular cloud platforms in terms of adoption, year over year (YoY) growth in adoption,
adoption of beginners, and virtual machine (VM) footprints. Even though AWS holds a major
percentage scores with enterprises, Azure is fast growing with a strong number of adoptions.
Google and IBM are growing steadily as well and lead in terms year to year growth of VMs
(Weins, 2019)

28
 Table 4.1: AWS vs Azure vs Google vs IBM Enterprise Scorecard (Weins, 2019)

Area AWS AZURE GOOGLE IBM

% Adoption 68% 58% 19% 15%

YoY Growth in Adoption 15% 35% 26% 50%

% Adoption in Beginners 47% 49% 18% 14%

% with Footprint > 50 VMs 58% 44% 17% 14%

YoY Growth in Footprint > 50 VMs 14% 38% 42% 56%

4.3 Main Comparative Features Used

The features used for this comparative study were chosen based on the current information
made available on the websites of the selected platforms, related research and logically by the
author under the guidance of the supervisors.

 Cloud service type: This shows which cloud service such as IaaS, PaaS and SaaS are
offered by the selected cloud platforms. Some of the selected platforms offer all three
service type (Laxmaiah and Sharma, 2019).
 Cloud storage: This enables users to store data in the cloud easily accessed entirely via
the internet from anywhere on various kind of device (Abdalla and Varol, 2019). Cloud
storage space is now an attraction for customers to choose a cloud platform (Ali Rahman
et al., 2018).
 Database supported: This provides support for handling different kind of database such
as relational, SQL, No SQL, Data warehouse, in-built memory cache (Wahid and
Banday, 2018).
 Security mechanism: This is the security measures put in place by the cloud platforms
to secure the integrity, privacy and confidentiality of a customer’s data (Kapil et al.,
2017)

29
 Service level agreement (SLA): This is the contract signed by the cloud platforms and a
user. It is necessary for users to receive assurances from providers on the provision of
services. Cloud users do not have control over the physical assets, they need to ensure
the reliability, usability, transparency, and efficiency of such services (Kapil et al.,
2017).
 Languages supported: This shows the programming languages that the cloud platforms
application supports such as Java, Python, C#, VB.NET which could be helpful to a
developer or a user (Laxmaiah and Sharma, 2019).
 Pricing method: This shows the payment method available in the cloud platform either
as Pay-as-you-go based which a user pays for as the use the service, subscription based
which a user pays a minimum price to subscribe for a certain duration and free tier which
a user use a service for free for a particular durations (Al-Sayyed et al., 2019).
 Virtualization method: This enables the running of two or more operating system on a
single machine called VM. Virtualization helps in the migration from one machine to
another. It aims to save power and reduce costs on physical hardware. It is usually
classified as hosted hypervisor or bare-metal virtualization (Jain and Choudhary, 2016)
 Mobile Services: This provides services for mobile apps development and testing, user
monitoring, notifications, identification, Application programming interface
management (Wahid and Banday, 2018).
 Internet of Things (IoT): This feature provides services that are connected to IoT
platform that allows appliances to connect seamlessly and safely to the internet in terms
of communication with applications from the cloud (Hyseni and Ibrahimi, 2017).
 Data Backup and Recovery: This shows features available to automatically back up and
recover data or a user has to implement backup and recovery of data manually (Dutta
and Dutta, 2019).
 User Interface: This shows the type of interface for a developer and an end user by the
cloud platforms for set up and implementation functions such as web based, Application
Programming Interface (API) and Console (Islam and Rehman, 2013).

30
Table 4.2 below, shows the twelve chosen features used for the comparison which were used
for the comparison of cloud platforms by other authors in previous related studies. This features
help to determine the choice of potential users, therefore it needs to be analysed and compared
to make the decision easier.

Table 4.2: Selected features for comparison and authors

FEATURES REFERENCE
Cloud service type Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019

Cloud storage Abdalla and varol, 2019

Database Supported Wahid and Banday, 2018

Security mechanism Kapil et al., 2017

Service Level Agreement Al-Sayedd et al., 2019

Languages Supported Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019

Pricing method Al-Sayedd et al., 2019

Virtualization method Jain and Choudhary, 2016

Mobile services Wahid and Banday, 2018

Internet of Things Hyseni and Ibrahimi, 2017

Data backup and recovery Dutta and Dutta, 2019

User Interface Islam and Rehman, 2013

31
4.4 Research Process

The research process involved eight steps as shown in Figure 4.4, which are Literature review
of the study, studying related research, getting approval from supervisor, gathering of data, data
analysis, developing of comparison and theoretical explanation, description of findings and
giving a report.

1. Literature 2. Studying 3. Getting

Review the related approval from
Theoretical research used supervisors
Framework for the study

Related Research

6. Comparison 4. Gathering of
5. Selecting
Comparing the data
Cloud platforms
selected cloud
High prestige
platforms with the
journal papers
chosen features

7. Results and 8. Reporting

Discussion

Figure 4:2: Research process

32
4.5 Research Schedule
Carrying out a study can be demanding. That’s why it is very important to schedule task to be
able to finish on time and meet deadline. This study started in August and was finished in fall
of December. Table 4.3 shows the task name and the number of days it took to be completed
while Figure 4.5 shows the steps taken for each task and dependencies in a Gantt chart

Table 4.3: Task schedule of the study

TASK NAME DURATION (DAYS)

Literature review 119

Select Thesis topic 5

Write proposal 1

Submission of proposal and approval 3

Gathering of data 2

Data analysis 14

Write Thesis 40
Submission of Thesis to supervisors 1

Correction and modifying Thesis 14

Thesis defense and final correction 7

Total number of days 119

33
Figure 4.3: Research schedule of the study

34
 CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter explains the results from the comparison of the features and analysed them to
previous related research while addressing the missing gap and discussing the result outcomes.

5.1 Results
The result of the comparison of these platforms based on the main features selected shows the
different features used by them, while some are the comparable, others have superior qualities.
Each feature used for comparison will be discussed in all four platforms before listed in a tabular
form.

1. Cloud Service Type

This explains the type of services provided by the four selected cloud platforms which
includes infrastructure, platform and software as a service. Most of platforms offer all three
available services.

AWS: Offers all three service types, Infrastructure as a service, platform as a service and
recently launched software as a service. It is popularly known for its top notch Infrastructure
as a service solution worldwide though.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Offers all three service type just like AWS, Infrastructure as
service such as Virtual machines, web hosting, test and development, Platform as a service
such as development framework and Software as a service such as email, calendars and
Microsoft tools.
Google App Engine: Primarily offers platform as a service. Which makes it unique than
others in this regard. It could be used by developers to build a SaaS.
IBM cloud: Offers all three service type Infrastructure as a service, platform as a service
and software as a service just like AWS and Azure.

35
2. Storage
This shows the type of storage options available for a user in the selected cloud platforms
that meets their various requirements.

AWS: Provides users with various options for storing data such as Simple storage service
for Big Data storage and backup and recovery, Elastic block storage for relational and
NoSQL database, enterprise applications, Elastic file system for tasks on Linux, Storage
gateway for hybrid and archival storage all at affordable prices.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Provides users with numerous options for data storage such
as Blob for unorganized data, File for sharing files, Queue for efficiently scaling congested
applications, Disk for support of virtual machines, and Data Lake for Big data analytics.
Queue and Data Lake storage provides options for high volume and vital task similar to
AWS storage gateway.
Google App Engine: Provides users with simple storage options such as Persistent disk,
cloud storage, Transfer appliance and services. Unlike AWS and Azure, Google App
Engine does not have for Big Data.
IBM clouds: Provides users with three storage options, Object for unorganized data like
Azure’s Blob, File and Block storage for local disk.

3. Database Support
This explains the type of database options provided by the selected cloud platforms to a
user. It is mostly classified into relational and non-relational database.

AWS: Provides users with different types of databases such as Aurora, RDS, Elastic Cache,
Dynamo DB, Neptune, Redshift, and migration service for relational, extra memory and
data migration service.
Microsoft Azure: Provides users with mostly SQL supported databases such as SQL,
MySQL, PostreSQL, Data warehouse, Table and CosmoDB.

36
 Google App Engine: Provides users with SQL and NOSQL supported database such as
SQL, Spanner, Datastore and Bigtable.
IBM clouds: Provides users with SQL supported databases such as SQL, PostreSQL, Lift,
MYSQL and Cloudant.

4. Security mechanism
This explains the security feature available in the selected cloud platforms for the protection
of a users’ data.

AWS: There are security features such as Amazon GuardDuty, Amazon Macie, AWS
shield and AWS web Applications in place to detect threat, protect data, safeguards apps
running on AWS and web applications Firewall.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Security center provides unparalleled security and protection
from threats in Azure platform.
Google App Engine: Provides Cloud Data Loss Prevention for managing sensitive data
and Security scanner for scanning for vulnerabilities.
IBM cloud: Provides Network security for the protection of servers and users from
malicious attacks. Also offers some monitoring tools.

5. Service Level Agreement Availability (SLA)

This explains the service level agreement available in the selected cloud platforms for a
user to enjoy the full benefit of the service.

AWS: It offers 99.9% monthly for services during a monthly billing (Al-Sayedd et al.,
2019).
Microsoft Windows Azure: It guarantees at least 99.9% for basic and premium services
(Al-Sayedd et al., 2019).
Google App Engine: It offers 99.95% monthly uptime to a user similar to Azure
(Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019).

37
 IBM cloud: It provides a 99.99% availability similar to that of AWS (Laxamaiah and
Sharma, 2019).

6. Languages Supported
This shows the programming languages supported by the selected cloud platforms for a
developer.

AWS: It supports any language. This makes AWS to be a stand out for developers.
Microsoft Windows Azure: It supports C#, Java, Python, PHP.
Google App Engine: It supports Java, Python, PHP, Go, Node.js.
IBM cloud: It supports Java, Python, PHP, and Node.js.

7. Pricing Method
This explains the pricing or payment method available to a user in the selected cloud
platforms such as pay as you use, subscription, free trial.

AWS: Offers Pay as you use paying for services you need only, Pay less by using more
gives users discount as the use more services, save when you reserve gives users a bigger
discount when they make a big upfront payment, free tier offers trials, 12 months free
services and some services that are always free to users.
Microsoft Windows Azure: offers pay as you use for services you use, subscription based,
Microsoft Enterprise agreement, Azure Hybrid Benefit using Windows server and SQL
licences at a cheaper rate.
Google App Engine: offers pay as you use for services used, free tier offers 12 months of
free services and some services are always free to eligible users subject to change.
IBM cloud: offers pay as you use for only services used, subscription based for a longer
period of time at a discounted rate, Lite offers free access to over 40 IBM services and
reserved instances for 1 year or 3 years with discount and guaranteed.

38
8. Virtualization Method
This shows the virtualization process available in the selected cloud platforms.

AWS: Virtualization is based on Kernel- based Virtual machine (KVM) for Amazon Elastic
compute.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Uses Hyper-V hypervisor to create virtual machine.
Google App Engine: Google compute engine Kernel- based Virtual machine (KVM).
IBM cloud: Uses bare-metal hypervisors for virtualization.

9. Mobile Services
This shows the mobile services offered by the selected cloud platforms available to a user.

AWS: AWS Amplify is the feature used for building mobile and web.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Offers features such as Mobile Apps for a developer to build
and host apps, notification hubs, Azure maps.
Google App Engine: Offers features to build mobile and android.
IBM cloud: Offers features such as IBM Mobile Foundation, IBM cloud App ID and IBM
Push Notification to build mobile and web apps.

10. Internet of Things (IoT)

This shows the internet of things features offered by the selected cloud platforms.

AWS: Offers numerous IoT features such as IoT core, IoT Analytics, IoT 1click, IoT
Button, IoT device Defender and IoT device Management enabling a user create IoT
applications for nearly any number of devices. AWS is far ahead of all its competitors in
terms of IoT.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Offers IoT features such as IoT Edge, IoT Hub, Time series
Insight, Stream analytics helping a user add IoT to any device and platform on the same
framework. It is AWS strongest rival to date.

39
 Google App Engine: Offers IoT core which connects and manages IoT devices. It is still
in early stage and behind its competitors.
IBM cloud: Offers IBM Edge Computing, IBM Watson Platform and Weather data APIs
for connecting devices and data to datasets and APIs from weather.

11. Data Backup and Recovery

This shows the data backup and recovery systems in place in the selected cloud platforms.

AWS: Provides Amazon glacier for data archiving and long term backup for at a very low
cost. Users are charged $1 per terabyte per month.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Provides options such as Archival storage, Recovery backups
and Site recovery for long term data backup and recovery.
Google App Engine: Provides Nearline and Coldline for backup, archival and recovery.
IBM cloud: Provides IBM cloud backup for backup and recovery of data.

12. User Interface

This shows the type graphical user interface available to a user by the selected cloud
platforms such as web based interface, application program interface and console.

AWS: Offers users’ easily accessible web based portal on a computer or mobile device.
Microsoft Windows Azure: Offers a web based interface, Application Program Interface
(API) for developers and Azure console.
Google App Engine: Offers a web based interface, Application Program interface for
developers and Google.
IBM cloud: Offers a web based user interface easily accessible.

Table 5.1 below, shows a tabular summary of the comparison of the features offered by the
selected cloud platforms, AWS, Microsoft Windows Azure, Google App Engine, and IBM
cloud.

40
 Table 5.1: Summary of Comparison of cloud platforms

AWS MICROSOFT GOOGLE APP IBM CLOUDS

WINDOWS ENGINE
AZURE

Cloud IAAS IAAS PAAS IAAS

service SAAS SAAS SAAS
Type PAAS PAAS PAAS

Cloud Simple Blob Persistent disk Object

storage storage File Cloud storage file
service Queue Transfer block
Elastic Disk appliance and
block Data Lake services
storage
Elastic file
system
Storage
Features

gateway

Database Aurora SQL SQL SQL

supported Relational MySQL Spanner PostgreSQL
Database PostgreSQL Datastore Lift
service Data warehouse Bigtable MySQL for
Elastic Table Cloud
Cache Cosmo DB Cloudant
Dynamo
DB
Neptune
Redshift
Migration
service

Security Amazon Security center Cloud Data Network

mechanism GuardDuty Loss security
Amazon Prevention
Macie Security
AWS scanner
Shield
AWS Web
Application
Firewall

41
 Table 5.1: Continue

Service 99.9% At least 99.95% At least At least

Level monthly uptime 99.99% uptime 99.99%
Agreement uptime uptime
(SLA)
availability

Supported Any C# Java Java

Languages Java Python Node.js
Python Node.js PHP
PHP Python
Go

Pricing Pay as you use Pay as you use Pay as you use GCP Pay as you use
method Pay less by Subscription free tier: free use of
using more Microsoft products during and Subscription
Save when you Enterprise after trial but Lite: offers free
reserve agreement subject to change. service to over
Subscription Azure Hybrid 40 services
Benefit Reserved
AWS Free tier: instances
offers services
always free,
expires after 12
months

42
 Table 5.1: Continue

Virtualizati Amazon Utilizes Hyper-V Google Bare-metal

on Method Elastic hypervisor compute virtualizatio
compute engine utilizes n
utilizes Kernel-based
Kernel- Virtual
based Machine
Virtual (KVM) as
Machine hypervisor
(KVM) as
hypervisor

Mobile AWS Mobile Apps Google Apps, IBM

services Amplify Notification Android Mobile
Hubs Foundation
Azure maps App ID
IBM Push
Notification

Internet of IoT Core IoT Edge, IoT Core IBM Edge

Features

Things IoT IoT Hub Computing

(IoT) Analytics Time series
IoT 1 click Insight IBM Watson
IoT Button Stream analytics platform
IoT Device Weather data
Defender APIs
IoT Device

Data Amazon Archival storage Nearline(regula IBM cloud

Backup and Glacier Recovery rly accessible Backup
Recovery backups data)
Site recovery Coldline(irregu
larly accessible
data)

User Web-based Web-based Web-based Web-based

Interface Application Application
Features

Program Program
Interface(API), Interface(API),
Console Console

43
5.2. Discussion

The results shows that three of these cloud platforms, AWS, Microsoft Windows Azure and
IBM cloud offer the three cloud service type which are Infrastructure as a service, platform as a
service and Software as a service compared to (Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019) who excluded
Software as a service for AWS and Microsoft Windows Azure. Even though it agrees that
Google App Engine only offers Platform as a service but developers can use GAE to build
Software as a service. In terms of storage, database support and backup and recovery, the result
supports the finding (Dutta and Dutta, 2019) for AWS, Microsoft Windows Azure and Google,
as well as close the knowledge gap that Azure stands out in terms of these services as it offers
customers with the highest variety of database and has the only backup recovery system among
these three cloud platforms followed closely by AWS while Google does not have a long term
backup and recovery system yet. This should make it more appealing to users seeking a cloud
platform for storing high volume data, vital tasks and archival storage. All four cloud platforms
provide SQL supported databases.

In security terms, they all have measures in place to protect the integrity, confidentiality and
privacy of users’ data, but AWS and Microsoft Windows Azure have better security features in
place than Google as also suggested (Dutta and Dutta, 2019). IBM cloud is also behind in
security in comparison to the three other cloud platforms (Deshmukh and Mishra, 2018). For
languages supported and SLA, the result agrees with (Laxamaiah and Sharma, 2019), only AWS
supports any language while the others support only certain languages. The common languages
used by all four cloud platforms are Java and Python. But there is only slight difference in SLA,
the result shows Google App Engine has a 99.99% monthly uptime availability in comparison
to 100% uptime as indicated in their later study. When it comes to pricing method, there is a big
difference from (Dutta and Dutta, 2019), AWS and Microsoft Windows Azure offer more but
complex payment structure involving a range of factors, even though the provide a cost
calculator. Microsoft Windows Azure offers benefits to users of Winder servers. Google and
IBM cloud provide a simpler and friendly pricing method. Google also offers the best free tier

44
service. If a user is seeking a cost effective cloud service with strong development prospect, this
should appeal.

This study also analyzed features for comparison such as Virtualization, mobile services, IoT
and User Interface all missing (Purohit, 2017; Deshmuhk and Mishra, 2018; Laxamaiah and
Sharma, 2019; Dutta and Dutta, 2019). AWS and Google App Engine both use Kernel- based
Virtual machine (KVM) for virtualization. Microsoft Windows Azure uses Hyper-V hypervisor
to run virtual machines. IBM cloud is based on Bare-metal hypervisors or VMware. Recently
Google and Microsoft enable Nested Virtualization, running of virtual machine (VM). For
mobile services, the all offer the opportunity to create mobile and web Apps, Notification Push
or Hubs, and maps which is beneficial to developers and users respectively. AWS leads the way
in IoT, with the many IoT services it helps leverage a variety of IoT business applications built
to empower businesses with the workplace of the future. Microsoft’s IoT edge is targeted
towards planning and business intelligence. Google’s only IoT is still in the testing phase. IBM
clouds also provide IoT services such as Weather Data APIs which integrates data from weather
companies.

All four selected cloud platforms use a web based interface for access by a user, even though
Microsoft azure and Google also use Application Program Interface (API) and Console as access
to developers

45
 CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Conclusion

Cloud computing is very important as it enables businesses to be more flexible by accessing

stored data via the internet from any location at any given time, offers reduced cost on a pay as
you use basis, boosts agility by providing infrastructure, backup and recovery and software
management at an affordable rate to individuals, companies, institutions and organizations. This
study reviewed some previous comparative study on popular cloud platforms and widen the gap
on the features compared. The study also compared four widely adopted cloud platforms which
includes AWS, MWA, GAE, and IBM clouds based on commonly shared features.

The result of the comparison showed that AWS has a vast global reach and market shares with
its flexible and wide range of services, it should appeal to large companies seeking a cloud
platform. Microsoft windows azure offers a hybrid solution, easy first time cloud migration, it
is suitable for start-ups and the best fit for organizations using Windows. Google App Engine
offers a cost effective platform and has huge development prospect, best fits developers of cloud
based software and apps. IBM clouds adoption rate is growing rapidly due to its unique
virtualization and private cloud services it offers.

This study is helpful to potential users of cloud platform such as small mid-size enterprises,
developers and large companies for selecting suitable cloud platforms that satisfies their
specification, as it analysed the features each cloud offers more quality service even though the
choice rests solely on the user.

46
6.2 Recommendations

This study can be extended to other cloud computing platforms, and more features can be
compared such as Machine learning, Artificial intelligence, Blockchain and many others as
cloud computing keeps adding more features to its users. The economic impact of cloud
platforms is an area yet to be explored by researchers as well.

47
REFERENCES

Abdalla, P., and Varol, A. (2019). Advantages to disadvantages of cloud computing for small-
sized business. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Digital Forensics
and Security. Barcelos, Portugal. IEEE.

Agarwal, A., Siddharth, S., and Bansal, P. (2016). Evolution of cloud computing and related
security concerns. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Colossal Data Analysis and
Networking. Indorie, India: IEEE.

Alam, M., Pandey, M., and Rautaray, S. (2015). A comprehensive survey on cloud
computing. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer
Science, 7(2), 68-79. doi: 10.5815/ijitcs.2015.02.09

Ali Rahman, F., Ferdiana, R., and Kusumawardani, S. (2018). Integrated cloud storage on
paperless thesis examination. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Science and Technology. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: IEEE.

Aljamal, R., El-Mousa, A., and Jubair, F. (2018). A comparative review of high-performance
computing major cloud service providers. In Proceeding of the 9th International
Conference on Information and Communication Systems (pp. 181-186). Irbid, Jordan:
IEEE.

Al-Sayyed, R. M. H., Hijawi, W. A., Bashiti, A. M., AlJarah, I., Obeid, N.,and Al-Adwan, O.
Y. A. (2019). An Investigation of Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services from
Users’ Perspectives. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,
14(10), 217-241. doi:10.3991/ijet.v14i10.9902

Ampaporn, P., and Gertphol, S. (2015). Performance measurement of SimpleDB APIs for
different data consistency models. In Proceedings of the International Computer
Science and Engineering Conference. Chiang Mai, Thailand: IEEE.

48
Bari, I., Babu, S., Iqbal, M., Saleem, Y., and Masood, Z. (2015). Cost and performance based
comparative study of top cloud service providers. International Journal of Computer
Science and Information Security, 13(12), 172-177.

BV, R., Baliga, V., and kumar, A. (2013). A comparative study of Amazon Web Service and
Windows Azure. International Journal of Advanced Computer Research, 3(3), 80-88.

Čandrlić, G. (2019). Cloud Computing - Types of Cloud. Retrieved 18 October 2019, from
https://www.globaldots.com/blog/cloud-computing-types-of-cloud

Chandel, S., Ni, T., and Yang, G. (2018). Enterprise cloud: Its growth & security challenges in
China. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and
Cloud Computing (pp. 144-152). Shanghai, China: IEEE.

Dignan, L. (2019). Top cloud providers 2018: How AWS, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle,
Alibaba stack up | ZDNet. Retrieved 29 November 2019, from
https://www.zdnet.com/article/top-cloud-providers-2018-how-aws-microsoft-google-
ibm-oracle-alibaba-stack-up/

Deshmukh, D., and Mishra, A. (2018). Comparative study between existing cloud service
providers. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 9(2), 537-
539. doi: 10.26483/ijarcs.v9i2.5722

Dutta, P., and Dutta, P. (2019). Comparative study of cloud services offered by Amazon,
Microsoft and Google. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and
Development, 3(3), 981-985. doi: 10.31142/ijtsrd23170

Dordevic, B., Jovanovic, S., and Timcenko, V. (2014). Cloud Computing in Amazon and
Microsoft Azure platforms: Performance and service comparison. In Proceeding of the
22nd Telecommunications Forum Telfor (pp. 931-934). Belgrade, Serbia: IEEE.

49
Ferriman, B., Hamed, T., and Mahmoud, Q. (2015). Storming the cloud: A look at denial of
service in the Google App Engine. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computing, Networking and Communications (pp. 363-368). Garden Grove, CA: IEEE.

Giovanoli, C. (2019). Cloud Service Quality Model: A cloud service quality model based on
customer and provider perceptions for cloud service mediation. In Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science (pp. 241-248)
Olten, Switzerland: SCITEPRESS.

Höfer, C. N., and Karagiannis, G. (2011). Cloud computing services: taxonomy and comparison.
Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 2(2), 81–94. doi:10.1007/s13174-011-
0027-x

Hyseni, L., and Ibrahimi, A. (2017). Comparison of the cloud computing platforms provided by
Amazon and Google. In Proceedings of the IEE Computing Conference (pp.236-243).
London, UK: IEEE.

Islam, N., and Rehman, A. (2013). A comparative study of major service providers for cloud
computing. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information and
Communication. Karachi, Pakistan.

Jain, N., and Choudhary, S. (2016). Overview of virtualization in cloud computing. In

Proceedings of the Symposium on Colossal Data Analysis and Networking. Indore,
India: IEEE.

K, M., Laxmaiah, M., and Sharma, Y. (2019). A comparative study on Google App Engine
Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Windows Azure. International Journal of
Computer Engineering & Technology, 10(1), 54-60. doi:10.34218/Ijcet.10.1.2019.007

Kaur, A., Raj, G., Yadav, S., and Choudhury, T. (2018). Performance evaluation of AWS and
IBM cloud platforms for security mechanism. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Computational Techniques, Electronics and Mechanical Systems
Proceedings (pp. 516-520). Belgaum, India: IEEE.

50
Kaur, A., Singh, V., and Singh Gill, S. (2018). The future of cloud computing: opportunities,
challenges and research trends. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
I-SMAC (pp. 213-219). doi: 10.1109/i-smac.2018.8653731

Kimmy. (2013). A comparative study of clouds in cloud computing. International Journal of

Computer Science & Engineering Technology, 4(6), 843-849.

Koneru, A., Naga Sai Rajani Bhavani, N., Purushottama Rao, K., Sai Prakash, G., Pavan
Kumar, I., and Venkat Kumar, V. (2018). Sentiment analysis on top five cloud service
providers in the market. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Trends
in Electronics and Informatics (pp. 293-297). Tirunelveli, India: IEEE.

Li, A., Yang, X., Kandula, S., and Zhang, M. (2010). CloudCmp. In Proceedings of the 10th
Annual Conference on Internet Measurement (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: ACM.

Liu, F., Tong, J., Mao, J., Bohn, R., Messina, J., Badger, M., and Leaf, D. (2020). NIST Cloud
Computing Reference Architecture. Retrieved 10 January 2020, from
https://www.nist.gov/publications/nist-cloud-computing-reference-architecture

Mell, P. M., and Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing.
doi:10.6028/nist.sp.800-145

Murty, J. (2008). Programming Amazon Web Services. Beijing: O'Reilly.

Narula, S., Jain, A., and Prachi. (2015). Cloud Computing Security: Amazon Web Service. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing &
Communication Technologies (pp. 501-505). Haryana, India: IEEE

Neto, M. (2019). A brief history of cloud computing - Cloud computing news. Retrieved 3
December 2019, from https://www.ibm.com/blogs/cloud-computing/2014/03/18/a-
brief-history-of-cloud-computing-3/

51
Padhy, R., Patra, M., and Satapathy, S. (2011). X-as-a-Service: Cloud Computing with Google
App Engine, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Force.com. International
Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications, 2(9), 8-16.

Purohit, R. (2017). Comparative analysis of few cloud service providers considering their
distinctive Properties. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
Science, 8(0976-5697), 1908-1916. doi: 10.26483/ijarcs.v8i5.4018

Sahu, Y., and Pateriya, R. (2013). Cloud Computing Overview with Load Balancing
Techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications, 65(24), 40-44. doi:
10.5120/11236-6559

Sarma, P., Kalita, C., and Deka, V. (2019). A Survey on Load Balancing Algorithms in Cloud
Computing. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, 7(6), 169-
176. doi: 10.26438/ijcse/v7i6.169176

Sharma, A., Ahmad, A., Singh, D., and Patni, J. (2016). CloudBox — a virtual machine manager
for KVM based virtual machines. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Next Generation Computing Technologies (pp.588-594). Dehradun, India: IEEE.

Swedha, K., & Dubey, T. (2018). Analysis of Web Authentication Methods Using Amazon Web
Services. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computing,
Communication and Networking Technologies. Bangalore, India: IEEE.

Tabot, A., and Hamada, M. (2014). Mobile Learning with Google App Engine. In Proceedings
of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on Embedded Multicore/Manycore Socs (pp.
63-67). Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan: IEEE.

Tajadod, G., Batten, L., and Govinda, K. (2012). Microsoft and Amazon: a comparison of
approaches to cloud security. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference
on Cloud Computing Technology And Science (pp. 539-544). Taipei, Taiwan: IEEE.

52
Tajane, K., Dave, S., Jahagirdar, P., Ghadge, A., and Musale, A. (2018). AI base chat-bot using
Azure cognitive services. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Computing Communication Control and Automation. Pune, India: IEEE.

Verma, A., Malla, D., Choudhary, A., and Arora, V. (2019). A Detailed Study of Azure Platform
& Its Cognitive Services. 2019 International Conference on Machine Learning, Big
Data, Cloud and Parallel Computing (pp. 129-134). Faridabad, India: IEEE.

Wang, L., von Laszewski, G., Younge, A., He, X., Kunze, M., Tao, J., and Fu, C. (2010). Cloud
computing: a perspective study. New Generation Computing, 28(2), 137-146. doi:
10.1007/s00354-008-0081-5

Wahid, A., and Banday, M. (2018). Machine type comparative of leading cloud players based
on performance & pricing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances
in Computing, Communications and Informatics (pp. 2364-2368). Banglore, India: IEEE

Weins, K. (2019). Cloud computing trends: 2018 State of the Cloud Survey | Flexera Blog.
Retrieved 29 November 2019, from
https://www.flexera.com/blog/cloud/2018/02/cloud-computing-trends-2018-state-of-
the-cloud-survey/

Xue, C., and Xin, F. (2016). Benefits and challenges of the adoption of cloud computing in
business. International Journal on Cloud Computing: Services and Architecture, 6(6),
01-15. doi: 10.5121/ijccsa.2016.6601

Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., and Boutaba, R. (2010). Cloud computing: state-of-the-art and research
challenges. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 1(1), 7-18. doi:
10.1007/s13174-010-0007-6.

53
 APPENDIX 2

ETHICAL APROVAL DOCUMENT

Date: 05/08/2019

To the Graduate School of Applied Sciences

The research study titled “Cloud Computing in Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Windows
Azure, Google App Engine and IBM Cloud Platforms: A Comparative Study” has been
evaluated. Since the researcher(s) will not collect primary data from humans, animals, plants or
earth, this project does not need to go through the ethics committee.

Title: Prof.Dr.
Name Surname: Nadire ÇAVUŞ
Signature:
Role in the Research Project: Supervisor

Title: Assist.Prof.Dr.
Name Surname: Damla KARAGÖZLÜ
Signature:
Role in the Research Project: Co-Supervisor

55
56