4 ms·

I may be wrong, but I recall reading Azure grew quickly because they already had MS contracts in place with many enterprise companies. They simply said, we’ll a

I may be wrong, but I recall reading Azure grew quickly because they already had MS contracts in place with many enterprise companies. They simply said, we’ll also hold your hand in the entire cloud process. This was critical because by then if you weren’t on AWS, you probably didn’t have the DevOps team to do so - MS was now willing to lend you enough consultants to do it for you. The number of spend shouldn’t be astronomically high. Most workflows in cloud computing are commoditized low-margin. It also explains why Google wants to do high-margin AI stuff, and why AWS is happy with low-margin areas.

scarface74 7y ago
That’s kind of my point and what I’ve been saying. Microsoft doesn’t tell a company that they should be using their new cool technology because we are “smart people” (tm) who know what’s best. Microsoft would say: “If you have a workload that still requires Windows 2000 and SQL Server 2003. We will help you migrate it to Azure as is and we will extend your support contract.” While Google will talk about migrating your entire workload to K8s.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Plus, Microsoft also has K8s support, so not only can they can "lift and shift" the existing dark matter applications, but they can also offer a conversion path/greenfield path.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    That’s not where the money savings come from being in the cloud. K8s is not the be all end all of being cloud native.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      Sure, but it adds an illusion of portability, which is partly what GCP is taking advantage of in focusing it and definitely what Microsoft here is taking advantage of in promoting K8s to dark matter developers: Part of Microsoft's implied message in heavily marketing K8s is that they know GCP is heavily K8s-based, and know GCP is heavily competing with them on price, and they are counting on some of that "dark matter conversion work" wanting to move towards the "more portable solution" in order to "maybe when the moons are right eventually shift over to GCP or something cheaper than Azure". By offering that conversion path at all, and knowing Enterprise's weakness for sunk costs development over from-scratch rewrites, they are playing a very different game than what GCP can offer.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Portability is always an illusion once you have any type of scale. Everyone who has ever done any type of large implementation or migration knows that. Even if you did everything in a “cloud agnostic” way, once you have even a couple of dozen VMs, your networking infrastructure and security rules, your user permissions, your DNS entries, your site to site VPNs, your client to site VPNs, all your data in databases, security and compliance audits etc. migrating your infrastructure is going to be a months long process, involving project plans, regression tests, and still have little to show for it. I was involved in a much smaller migration as a dev lead when all we had to do was migrate to WorkDay for HR, payroll, and time tracking. That involved tons of integration work and hiring Workday consultants. Not to mention consolidating all of the other SAAS solutions that we had to integrate when we merged with another company.
        WorldMaker 7y ago
        Which is exactly part of my point in how shrewd Microsoft's marketing is here. K8s exactly has the marketing "smell" of "cloud agnostic", without being in fact provably so. Microsoft can compete with Google better in that arena than Google can precisely because they have other services. It's a "yes, plus" situation. "Yes, we do K8s too, but also we can lift and shift your existing operation in the meantime while you build it." That has a lot of hidden lock-in power and I presume Microsoft knows that very well, even better because they know after that "lift and shift" many dark matter companies will just stop there because while they could migrate, migrations aren't free or cheap and they can kick that can down the road possibly forever. Managers every day are persuaded by the possibility that they could migrate to K8s if they wanted to, whether or not that is ever the real plan. It's why "lift and shift" really is a fascinating game changer that Azure has that neither GCP or AWS can quite so directly compete with. It's why Azure's K8s strategy is so fascinating: precisely because the more they make it "cloud agnostic" on paper and are good K8s/Docker citizens the greater power they have for Manager mentality lock-in to the non-cloud agnostic stuff (especially "lift and shift").

scarface74 7y ago

That’s kind of my point and what I’ve been saying. Microsoft doesn’t tell a company that they should be using their new cool technology because we are “smart people” (tm) who know what’s best. Microsoft would say: “If you have a workload that still requires Windows 2000 and SQL Server 2003. We will help you migrate it to Azure as is and we will extend your support contract.” While Google will talk about migrating your entire workload to K8s.

WorldMaker 7y ago
Plus, Microsoft also has K8s support, so not only can they can "lift and shift" the existing dark matter applications, but they can also offer a conversion path/greenfield path.
- scarface74 7y ago
  That’s not where the money savings come from being in the cloud. K8s is not the be all end all of being cloud native.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Sure, but it adds an illusion of portability, which is partly what GCP is taking advantage of in focusing it and definitely what Microsoft here is taking advantage of in promoting K8s to dark matter developers: Part of Microsoft's implied message in heavily marketing K8s is that they know GCP is heavily K8s-based, and know GCP is heavily competing with them on price, and they are counting on some of that "dark matter conversion work" wanting to move towards the "more portable solution" in order to "maybe when the moons are right eventually shift over to GCP or something cheaper than Azure". By offering that conversion path at all, and knowing Enterprise's weakness for sunk costs development over from-scratch rewrites, they are playing a very different game than what GCP can offer.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Portability is always an illusion once you have any type of scale. Everyone who has ever done any type of large implementation or migration knows that. Even if you did everything in a “cloud agnostic” way, once you have even a couple of dozen VMs, your networking infrastructure and security rules, your user permissions, your DNS entries, your site to site VPNs, your client to site VPNs, all your data in databases, security and compliance audits etc. migrating your infrastructure is going to be a months long process, involving project plans, regression tests, and still have little to show for it. I was involved in a much smaller migration as a dev lead when all we had to do was migrate to WorkDay for HR, payroll, and time tracking. That involved tons of integration work and hiring Workday consultants. Not to mention consolidating all of the other SAAS solutions that we had to integrate when we merged with another company.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        Which is exactly part of my point in how shrewd Microsoft's marketing is here. K8s exactly has the marketing "smell" of "cloud agnostic", without being in fact provably so. Microsoft can compete with Google better in that arena than Google can precisely because they have other services. It's a "yes, plus" situation. "Yes, we do K8s too, but also we can lift and shift your existing operation in the meantime while you build it." That has a lot of hidden lock-in power and I presume Microsoft knows that very well, even better because they know after that "lift and shift" many dark matter companies will just stop there because while they could migrate, migrations aren't free or cheap and they can kick that can down the road possibly forever. Managers every day are persuaded by the possibility that they could migrate to K8s if they wanted to, whether or not that is ever the real plan. It's why "lift and shift" really is a fascinating game changer that Azure has that neither GCP or AWS can quite so directly compete with. It's why Azure's K8s strategy is so fascinating: precisely because the more they make it "cloud agnostic" on paper and are good K8s/Docker citizens the greater power they have for Manager mentality lock-in to the non-cloud agnostic stuff (especially "lift and shift").