Skip to main content

Are Industry Clouds Taking Off? Yes and No

Arun Ramchandran
Hexaware

Cloud providers Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure each have rolled out multiple industry-specific offerings in an attempt to better appeal to companies in specific industries, including financial services, retail, telecommunications, media, energy, to name a few.

Amazon and Google Cloud have been the most aggressive in this area, each with 20 different industry-specific cloud offerings.

In some ways, vertical industry clouds are a natural evolution after the general purpose cloud services (like Azure and AWS), and the horizontal function-driven SaaS platforms.

Works for Some, Not for All

While the idea of an industry-specific offering certainly has some appeal for many of the targeted customers, there are still other instances in which these offerings aren't quite the right fit.

The horizontal cloud providers haven't had the expertise in house to fully understand all of an industry's needs and restrictions (e.g., security, compliance requirements, etc.). As a result, they have been honing their industry-specific offerings using input from former industry experts. These horizontal providers have either hired former industry professionals directly or have acquired their services as the result of an acquisition.

The new employees and industry partners handle the brunt of the industry-specific refinements while the cloud providers focus on technical aspects of their technologies, like edge computing, networking, and more.

There are a few different reasons why an industry-specific cloud might not provide as many benefits as the cloud providers say they will — advantages that seem to be expected, at least at first glance.

The financial services sector provides a good example of such a difference in industry-specific cloud offerings and the needs of different customers.

While some financial services providers are somewhat narrowly focused, providing basic banking services, such as loans, checking, savings, online payments and maybe a couple of other products, others are designed to be "one-stop" financial services providers, with insurance, wealth management, robust investment services, and a host of other offerings.

Many organizations may find that an industry-specific cloud provides just what they need in terms of features. It may serve their needs much better than anything they could develop in house. It could enable them to provide their customers with cloud-based services.

However, for some of the smaller, more specialized financial services providers, an industry-specific cloud may be oversized — and therefore, overpriced — for their needs.
Still others may be concerned that their cloud-based data may not be insulated sufficiently enough from competitors using the same cloud provider. Such firms may still rely on an industry-specific cloud for some uses - but will elect to keep much of their data in house.

Another challenge is that the industries themselves keep changing, offering new products and services that previously weren't considered part of their business. The iPhone is only 15 years old, but who doesn't have at least one of those (or one or more of its competitors) today? So, an industry-specific cloud offering may be too restrictive to serve a company's needs as it expands.

Companies in the financial services, telecom, energy and other industries continue to evolve. Truist Financial Services, for example, the result of the 2019 BB&T acquisition of SunTrust Banks, has a wider customer base and selection of offerings than either bank by itself pre-merger. As a result, it is working with not one, but three different cloud providers — AWS, Google and Microsoft — to meet all of its needs.

That means the added complexity of managing different cloud providers. While such a situation may be workable for Truist, at least for now, other financial services providers wouldn't want to have the complexity of overseeing different cloud services providers.

So expect the cloud services providers to continue to continue to further refine and expand their vertical industry offerings in an attempt to capture more of these lucrative markets, but also realize that there will be a significant percentage in those industries that the cloud services providers may not be able to satisfy. The general-purpose cloud providers will co-exist with horizontal function-driven SaaS providers and the emerging vertical industry cloud platforms as part of an enterprise business value chain.

Arun "Rak" Ramchandran is a Corporate VP at Hexaware

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...

Are Industry Clouds Taking Off? Yes and No

Arun Ramchandran
Hexaware

Cloud providers Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure each have rolled out multiple industry-specific offerings in an attempt to better appeal to companies in specific industries, including financial services, retail, telecommunications, media, energy, to name a few.

Amazon and Google Cloud have been the most aggressive in this area, each with 20 different industry-specific cloud offerings.

In some ways, vertical industry clouds are a natural evolution after the general purpose cloud services (like Azure and AWS), and the horizontal function-driven SaaS platforms.

Works for Some, Not for All

While the idea of an industry-specific offering certainly has some appeal for many of the targeted customers, there are still other instances in which these offerings aren't quite the right fit.

The horizontal cloud providers haven't had the expertise in house to fully understand all of an industry's needs and restrictions (e.g., security, compliance requirements, etc.). As a result, they have been honing their industry-specific offerings using input from former industry experts. These horizontal providers have either hired former industry professionals directly or have acquired their services as the result of an acquisition.

The new employees and industry partners handle the brunt of the industry-specific refinements while the cloud providers focus on technical aspects of their technologies, like edge computing, networking, and more.

There are a few different reasons why an industry-specific cloud might not provide as many benefits as the cloud providers say they will — advantages that seem to be expected, at least at first glance.

The financial services sector provides a good example of such a difference in industry-specific cloud offerings and the needs of different customers.

While some financial services providers are somewhat narrowly focused, providing basic banking services, such as loans, checking, savings, online payments and maybe a couple of other products, others are designed to be "one-stop" financial services providers, with insurance, wealth management, robust investment services, and a host of other offerings.

Many organizations may find that an industry-specific cloud provides just what they need in terms of features. It may serve their needs much better than anything they could develop in house. It could enable them to provide their customers with cloud-based services.

However, for some of the smaller, more specialized financial services providers, an industry-specific cloud may be oversized — and therefore, overpriced — for their needs.
Still others may be concerned that their cloud-based data may not be insulated sufficiently enough from competitors using the same cloud provider. Such firms may still rely on an industry-specific cloud for some uses - but will elect to keep much of their data in house.

Another challenge is that the industries themselves keep changing, offering new products and services that previously weren't considered part of their business. The iPhone is only 15 years old, but who doesn't have at least one of those (or one or more of its competitors) today? So, an industry-specific cloud offering may be too restrictive to serve a company's needs as it expands.

Companies in the financial services, telecom, energy and other industries continue to evolve. Truist Financial Services, for example, the result of the 2019 BB&T acquisition of SunTrust Banks, has a wider customer base and selection of offerings than either bank by itself pre-merger. As a result, it is working with not one, but three different cloud providers — AWS, Google and Microsoft — to meet all of its needs.

That means the added complexity of managing different cloud providers. While such a situation may be workable for Truist, at least for now, other financial services providers wouldn't want to have the complexity of overseeing different cloud services providers.

So expect the cloud services providers to continue to continue to further refine and expand their vertical industry offerings in an attempt to capture more of these lucrative markets, but also realize that there will be a significant percentage in those industries that the cloud services providers may not be able to satisfy. The general-purpose cloud providers will co-exist with horizontal function-driven SaaS providers and the emerging vertical industry cloud platforms as part of an enterprise business value chain.

Arun "Rak" Ramchandran is a Corporate VP at Hexaware

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...