> Just like cloud infrastructure, it is more efficient to centralize and rent out capacity as needed. Cloud infrastructure is probably a bad example. It essent

> Just like cloud infrastructure, it is more efficient to centralize and rent out capacity as needed. Cloud infrastructure is probably a bad example. It essentially got started at the same time as x64 virtualization was becoming a thing, so you had people comparing the cost of operating 25 physical servers to what Amazon charges for 25 virtual machines and then the virtual machines are obviously a better deal. But one VM host can run all 25 VMs, and if you operate it locally then the latency is much lower (<1ms vs. ~40ms), there is much more local bandwidth (symmetric gigabit or 10G vs. 50Mbps/20Mbps or whatever your site's internet link is), you don't have to pay anyone for those bytes, local servers are still accessible when Comcast is down, your data stays on site instead of being stored who-knows-where accessible to who-knows-who, etc. There are use cases for cloud hosting, high volume static web hosting being the major one because then the data is public, the users aren't local and (this is the main reason) last mile ISPs charge uncompetitive prices for fast WAN connections. But people massively overuse it for other things. Companies that put the local file/print server in The Cloud are doing it wrong.