Google has lots of servers, reputedly around half a million of them, and the company remorselessly churns out new services based on them.
Google doesn't need to buy its servers from HP, or its processors from Intel or its software from Yahoo, so the three companies are setting up in competition.
Intel/HP/Yahoo have even copied Google's cloud computing research initiative which ropes in universities along with industrial partners.
Google, with its cloud computing industrial partner IBM, has recruited six of America's most prestigious universities: Stanford, Washington, Maryland, California-at-Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
HP/Intel/Yahoo have roped in the University of Illinois, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany.
But somehow the idea of storing your data and accessing programmes from a remote server rather from a hard disc, still seem unattractive when massive amounts of local storage are available very cheaply.
It's not the idea of using remote computers that's unattractive about the idea of cloud computing, it's the connections to those computers which put you off the idea of cloud computing.
Just as it was the inadequacies of the connections which scuppered Oracle's Larry Ellison's idea of Net computing a decade ago.
Cloud computing is unattractive becasue of the hassle of using networks. Most companies have large numbers of IT staff to deal with the flakiness and insecurities of fixed networks, and accessing mobile networks is still a royal pain in the ass.