3 ms·

And you're not even talking about data gravity... Moving data from one provider to another will quickly drive your costs up.

• windexh8er 7y ago
  I was formerly at Docker and this thread of comments is spot on. There are so many head winds to the "multi-cloud" strategy play. The first is it's way more expensive. A common theme was: data science team is using containers on Azure and we want to do something that ACS makes hard for us so tell us why Docker Enterprise. Present Docker Enterprise architecture, workflow and pricing... So, for what you pay $300-500 month were going to ramp that cost up to a couple thousand a month because we're going to make you run 24/7/365 VMs to manage the architecture Microsoft has gotten the economy of scale from and you're now tied to a costly license for Docker Enterprise. Now do this across a few clouds simultaneously. OpenShift isn't any different. And in fact Docker invested a ton of time into an entire product, built around Terraform, that manages ecosystem deployment to any cloud that a lot of people wanted but couldn't buy. In fact that was probably a more sellable product than trying to shove Enterprise Engine and Docker Trusted Repository down people's throats. If you boil it down the common pattern seems to be: cloud lift and shift of legacy VM from on-prem DC is more expensive. The lift you get from cloud is PaaS and the SaaS that's included to manage it. But very few are cloud native ready and take the perspective that: we'll lift and shift it today and then our next project is cloud native transformation. Yeah... That latter part rarely happens. And AWS, GCP and Azure all profit.