The article also quotes Bobby Johnson, who helped run Facebook's Hadoop cluster, as well as the creator of Kafka (who ran Hadoop clusters at LinkedIn).
For what it's worth, all three of them seemed pretty down on Hadoop.
I think the parent is right though. Side topic but having seen how PR pieces are crafted, this feels like something that Snowflake put together and then passed on to datanami with a "we have a blog post we'd like you to publish" type mail. Claim is somewhat unsubstantiated but everything about it reeks of it trying to drive the person to discover of Snowflake at the start, and to think of it again at the end.
A quick search of hadoop against the snowflake domain and the term hadoop against the term snowflake, I keep finding that Snowflake has a definite Target in mind which is to convert hadoop users or people evaluating hadoop to choose them instead. They even have a webinar specifically for that segment of people.
Even further searching of Alex Woodie and mentions of snowflake show multiple articles with the CEO across multiple domains including datanami and Enterprise tech.
All that is circumstantial but I'm exercising a healthy bit of skepticism that this piece is pure research done by Alex Woodie. A little more objectively,
If I examine the "points" of the article, what I can see is:
Bob muglia has never met a happy hadoop customer. Mention couple of things that might replace hadoop in the future.
Bob muglia has only seen a few customers who've tamed hadoop.
Some discussions with and about Facebook's experience with hadoop painting hadoop as hard work from the outset.
More discussions with other tech folk (Kafka and data torrent). One is an alternative of sorts, and the other again discusses pain of hadoop.
And then back to Bob Muglia and who his target customers are for Snowflake - "hadoop refugees" - and his belief that we are in the valley of despair regarding hadoop.
Which brings us to the final mental point of the article. Ditch hadoop sooner rather than later, and here are the alternatives where the main one pushed from start to end is Snowflake.
I apologise if this was too far off the topic. I think the discussion of hadoop's validity or how it's being used is valid. I do also believe it's healthy to call out suspect stuff like this because the core of the article itself provides little to no critical value.
A quick search of hadoop against the snowflake domain and the term hadoop against the term snowflake, I keep finding that Snowflake has a definite Target in mind which is to convert hadoop users or people evaluating hadoop to choose them instead. They even have a webinar specifically for that segment of people.
Even further searching of Alex Woodie and mentions of snowflake show multiple articles with the CEO across multiple domains including datanami and Enterprise tech.
All that is circumstantial but I'm exercising a healthy bit of skepticism that this piece is pure research done by Alex Woodie. A little more objectively,
If I examine the "points" of the article, what I can see is:
Bob muglia has never met a happy hadoop customer. Mention couple of things that might replace hadoop in the future.
Bob muglia has only seen a few customers who've tamed hadoop.
Some discussions with and about Facebook's experience with hadoop painting hadoop as hard work from the outset.
More discussions with other tech folk (Kafka and data torrent). One is an alternative of sorts, and the other again discusses pain of hadoop.
And then back to Bob Muglia and who his target customers are for Snowflake - "hadoop refugees" - and his belief that we are in the valley of despair regarding hadoop.
Which brings us to the final mental point of the article. Ditch hadoop sooner rather than later, and here are the alternatives where the main one pushed from start to end is Snowflake.
I apologise if this was too far off the topic. I think the discussion of hadoop's validity or how it's being used is valid. I do also believe it's healthy to call out suspect stuff like this because the core of the article itself provides little to no critical value.