I never said it did cost that much. I just said that they implied a 30% savings but that was without counting the new hardware. It is disingenuous to say that i

I never said it did cost that much. I just said that they implied a 30% savings but that was without counting the new hardware. It is disingenuous to say that it is ~100% efficient just by moving the management cost elsewhere. I agree it was probably a win for them, I'm just pointing out that the way it was presented in the article was misleading.