|
|
|
|
|
|
by nippoo
69 days ago
|
|
|
I'm always curious what RoI analysis goes into this kind of decision - whether to leave on-prem and join the cloud, or vice versa. The numbers always seem huge, and in opposite directions. "Moving from onsite datacenters to AWS saved us $2m/year!" Has something changed with AWS' pricing recently, have their business needs changed over the years, or were the calculations (to use AWS) just wrong to begin with? |
|
|
The classic Enterprise model is to fire up a business operation using cloud providers to extend geographically, and quickly validate the business. Then you either pull the plug or start going on or near-perm for operational cost control. The finance math works out well and you free up capital for other investments.
Tech startups are in a bit of a bubble where a huge AWS integration might be a product differentiator, but also have an orthodoxy built around massive growth capabilities that investors want even if pricey (startups mean dreams of scale and cashing in).
The cloud is pricey, but has value in its services that’s hard to replicate. On prem is better but now you’re in the data centre business want to or not.
And, then, if you’re evil you’d probably look at hybrid solutions, where each part is being milked for money and redundancy, and vendors are being played off one another since you’re perpetually moving away and towards already in-prod solutions from competitors. “Are you saying we have to move that on-prem? Those dudes’ll love the bonuses I guess.” “Huh, well the OtherCloud instance price we’re getting is way better, we were gonna harmonize anyways...” “You know what, forget it, BigCloud solves that for pennies, unless…”
The cloud is neither cheap nor expensive, it’s how you play with it that costs.