| The truth is somewhere in the middle. I’m a sysadmin, I know hardware. I think it’s a complete myth that hardware is hard: especially compared with the irreducible complexity that is AWS. But: I find myself coming back to the cloud. Why? It costs more and you have less control. Scale up is not as important as it seems and the 10x cost difference would mean scale is not a factor either. But, in my experience, not dealing with an IT department is the main reason. Hardware lead times can be high, sure, but there is nothing more frustrating than depending on someone to do their job and they do it bad. The “efficiency of scale” is almost entirely in the tooling, certainly not the cost, when it comes to cloud. I keep coming back because even though compute is not hard, nor networking for that matter: distributed storage is still hard. I have three on-premise servers now and dealing with the IT team is.. well, let’s just say I prefer to deal with the cloud vendor. The number of people hired to manage the cloud tends to be the same number as hired to deal with on-prem. I've been in a company with many hundreds of physical machines to manage and a team of 4, and I've been in a company with infrastructure that handles a similar use-case on cloud in a team of 5.. So I don't buy the headcount argument honestly. |
After all, most companies using the "cloud" still have on-staff IT anyway, since non-technical people still cannot manage AWS or any other cloud provider on their own.
Cash flow is another thing - lay out big money for redundant on-site servers and supporting hardware today, or pay as you go and use the cloud. Even if the cloud is ultimately more expensive, it's easier for C-suite folks to plan for a small monthly expense vs. huge up front expenses and then dealing with failures and upgrades, etc.