We migrated a bunch of clients back when we took over for other IT. Cloud was slower, way more costly, less utilitarian, and gave less control. I have no idea why people switched in the first place.
I actually brought it up on an MSP subreddit back when I was still posting there and was relentlessly shit on.
The theory is that on-prem includes a lot of ancillary costs like a team of staff for maintenance (or cost for outsourcing it), hardware maintenance/upgrades, cybersecurity, dealing with failures, backup, load balancing, multi-region/multizone etc.
I don’t think cloud solves all these issues necessarily and I am convinced if you do the calculations cloud ends up being more expensive depending on the scale. I think you really pay the premium for convenience, speed (of getting things going) and user experience (the software)
The biggest reason I think is SLAs and the ability to blame someone else when something goes wrong. I’ve seen it play out at multiple different companies now.
Yeah, having to have someone „on site“ who knows about cyber security and such vs having a piece of paper laying around that tells you that availability, continuity, security are hidden away in a SEP field. It’s easy to guess which one you want to choose…
SLA and support is the biggest one. We had to pay Migrants for Docker Enterprise licenses just in case we needed support or some sort of liability shield.
Well there is a distinction. If the on prem hardware is running a cloud stack, which hosts all the actual stuff the company wants, then it’s on-prem cloud. The purpose of this is usually to make infra management more infra-as-code friendly, and keep most of the benefits of cloud (convenience mostly) with less cost. Of course it requires hiring people who know how all of that works, something you get “included in the cost” when you pay for off-prem cloud.
Unless you’re paying someone run hybrid cloud for you (IBM and other so this), but that’s usually for sensitive data or if all your users are in house and sending data to the cloud just to get it right back doesn’t make financial sense.
They proceeded to basically jack the price and otherwise alienate much of the user base. In a world where AWS is a thing, you saw a lot of companies walk, and there was a general lamentation for enterprise on-prem virtualization options.
Whith US uncertainty talk has already started, at least here in Norway more and more are talking about looking at exit strategy. Costs are huge because reinvestment but disruption is worse.
deleted by creator
We migrated a bunch of clients back when we took over for other IT. Cloud was slower, way more costly, less utilitarian, and gave less control. I have no idea why people switched in the first place.
I actually brought it up on an MSP subreddit back when I was still posting there and was relentlessly shit on.
Because “cloud” was the hot buzzword of 2005
It is good for some things like a web server but bad for anything that involves high data or compute needs.
The theory is that on-prem includes a lot of ancillary costs like a team of staff for maintenance (or cost for outsourcing it), hardware maintenance/upgrades, cybersecurity, dealing with failures, backup, load balancing, multi-region/multizone etc.
I don’t think cloud solves all these issues necessarily and I am convinced if you do the calculations cloud ends up being more expensive depending on the scale. I think you really pay the premium for convenience, speed (of getting things going) and user experience (the software)
The biggest reason I think is SLAs and the ability to blame someone else when something goes wrong. I’ve seen it play out at multiple different companies now.
Yeah, having to have someone „on site“ who knows about cyber security and such vs having a piece of paper laying around that tells you that availability, continuity, security are hidden away in a SEP field. It’s easy to guess which one you want to choose…
SLA and support is the biggest one. We had to pay Migrants for Docker Enterprise licenses just in case we needed support or some sort of liability shield.
Hybrid cloud is where it is at
My workplace started using “onprem cloud” and I can’t even begin to describe how I feel on the matter.
If it convinces the beancounters and management to accept it, it’s a win.
I think that’s called fog
Marketing works, and executives aren’t that smart
Well there is a distinction. If the on prem hardware is running a cloud stack, which hosts all the actual stuff the company wants, then it’s on-prem cloud. The purpose of this is usually to make infra management more infra-as-code friendly, and keep most of the benefits of cloud (convenience mostly) with less cost. Of course it requires hiring people who know how all of that works, something you get “included in the cost” when you pay for off-prem cloud.
Unless you’re paying someone run hybrid cloud for you (IBM and other so this), but that’s usually for sensitive data or if all your users are in house and sending data to the cloud just to get it right back doesn’t make financial sense.
Broadcom fucked a lot of people with the VMware debacle. If I was a business owner I would think twice about where I’m putting my eggs.
Sorry, I’ve been out of the game for a while. Can you expand upon this? I’d like to better understand.
Qualcomm bought VM ware after Dell spit it out.
They proceeded to basically jack the price and otherwise alienate much of the user base. In a world where AWS is a thing, you saw a lot of companies walk, and there was a general lamentation for enterprise on-prem virtualization options.
Thank you for the explanation.
We’ve on-premed a lot of things in the past year, and plan doing more.
Whith US uncertainty talk has already started, at least here in Norway more and more are talking about looking at exit strategy. Costs are huge because reinvestment but disruption is worse.