5 ms·

First, anyone with under $100K per year of cloud expense should probably just suck it up and keep going. You have more important fish to fry than to worry abou

by bsder 5y ago

First, anyone with under $100K per year of cloud expense should probably just suck it up and keep going. You have more important fish to fry than to worry about cloud lock-in. Second, if you've got more than $10M per year of cloud expense you most likely should be thinking about switching to a hybrid model. You have the resources to manage your own computers as well as analyze your expenses and should be using the cloud companies when it saves money. The biggest problem at this level is that your employees probably use "cloud" as a way to bypass your IT department because they're not responsive enough because everybody with an MBA thinks of IT as a "cost center" and shortchanges it. Third, I think this gives WAY too much credit to the competence of modern large enterprises. The fact that Oracle isn't bankrupt demonstrates that competence and technical execution really don't dominate the enterprise business cycle. And Microsoft really didn't have all that much control until Office365--I've never heard anybody talk about losing control of their desktop spend as all they had to do was slow down the refresh cycle on their desktops to control that cost. It's only been since Office365 that things have changed--and the mid-tier businesses love Office365 because now they don't have to deal with managing Outlook anymore. In between $100K and $10M cloud spend, however, is a tough spot. I suspect that answer is still "just keep going" and that delivering features requested by marketing and sales is more important than reducing cloud spend.

MonaroVXR 5y ago
> The fact that Oracle isn't bankrupt demonstrates that competence and technical execution really don't dominate the enterprise business cycle. So... It's marketing, licenses and lawsuits? (I'm serious, since I don't know Oracle from... Bad reputation and Java.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oneplane 5y ago
There are a ton of small time complaining blogs about all the clouds, but practically none of them are at a scale where it really matters anyway. A recent one was about how clouds should be dumb pipes, but the blog forgot about the 30 FTE you'd be hiring just to maintain your 'own' IAM, API and on-demand CRUD of generic resources (like compute, storage, networking and higher level resources like databases, object stores, queues, buffers, pubsub). And then they also forgot about the benefit of scale they would never be able to compare with as a single customer vs. a multinational specialised company with practically every possible service scenario under the sun... Once you are beyond about 200K with enough in-house dedication you can start thinking about higher level abstractions that make you less bound to a single cloud or less bound to a single implementation (which can still be on a single cloud vendor's offering). You'd end up going that way anyway because at scale some facilities start to need adjustments to keep up with demand, like the creation and lifecycle management of object stores; you really can't be manually or bare-API managing those anymore when you have a ton of them. At that point you make processes, policies and automation a thing and if you implement them with some abstraction in mind it suddenly can be made to work everywhere... this is also where the bulk cost and ROI comes in; say you have your internal adaption in place for S3, adding B2 or R2 is really not that hard. Bam, object egress solved (For non-IAM scenarios; signed URLS would still work tho). But maintaining and owning this when you aren't big enough is just a drag your customers (internal and external) aren't going to profit from, and you really should be spending your time and resources elsewhere. Because you should probably focus on your business first, on what your customers want (so you can sell more in a commercial setting), and then on optimising your processes at which point you might be getting to the size where your increase in vertical integration starts making sense.

by bsder 5y ago

MonaroVXR 5y ago

> The fact that Oracle isn't bankrupt demonstrates that competence and technical execution really don't dominate the enterprise business cycle. So... It's marketing, licenses and lawsuits? (I'm serious, since I don't know Oracle from... Bad reputation and Java.)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

oneplane 5y ago

There are a ton of small time complaining blogs about all the clouds, but practically none of them are at a scale where it really matters anyway. A recent one was about how clouds should be dumb pipes, but the blog forgot about the 30 FTE you'd be hiring just to maintain your 'own' IAM, API and on-demand CRUD of generic resources (like compute, storage, networking and higher level resources like databases, object stores, queues, buffers, pubsub). And then they also forgot about the benefit of scale they would never be able to compare with as a single customer vs. a multinational specialised company with practically every possible service scenario under the sun... Once you are beyond about 200K with enough in-house dedication you can start thinking about higher level abstractions that make you less bound to a single cloud or less bound to a single implementation (which can still be on a single cloud vendor's offering). You'd end up going that way anyway because at scale some facilities start to need adjustments to keep up with demand, like the creation and lifecycle management of object stores; you really can't be manually or bare-API managing those anymore when you have a ton of them. At that point you make processes, policies and automation a thing and if you implement them with some abstraction in mind it suddenly can be made to work everywhere... this is also where the bulk cost and ROI comes in; say you have your internal adaption in place for S3, adding B2 or R2 is really not that hard. Bam, object egress solved (For non-IAM scenarios; signed URLS would still work tho). But maintaining and owning this when you aren't big enough is just a drag your customers (internal and external) aren't going to profit from, and you really should be spending your time and resources elsewhere. Because you should probably focus on your business first, on what your customers want (so you can sell more in a commercial setting), and then on optimising your processes at which point you might be getting to the size where your increase in vertical integration starts making sense.