|
|
|
|
|
|
by poulsbohemian
2921 days ago
|
|
|
Much like in The Princess Bride, when companies say they are moving to the cloud for "cost," that word does not mean what they think it means. What they are really saying is that it is "cheaper" to swipe their corporate card for some AWS each month than it is for them to deal with the political and cognitive effort of doing it themselves. You know you can cook a better and cheaper meal at home but then you have a lot more effort than if you just go out to a restaurant and swipe your card. Same deal here, and most companies just want to get on with being a health care provider, energy company, financial services company, etc and they are willing to admit that they just don't have the stomach for IT. Going to the cloud is one of those places where they say cost but what they really mean is <networking | servers | power | etc> are _hard_. |
|
|
But I (and the GP) addressed that. It just isn't hard.
Your earlier comment is closer to the truth:
> political and cognitive effort of doing it themselves
With "traditional" industries, it seems the problem is entirely political, and it actually is about cost, because cloud isn't competing against the commodity gear we've been talking about here. Cloud is competing against "enterprise" hardware, which easily costs even more than cloud, not least of which due to maintenance contracts.
There was some discussion of this (somewhat tangential to the main topic) I participated in here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329028