3 ms·

Interesting story as I recall Bank of America saving 5x that amount per year by doing the exact opposite move. https://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-americas

• Spivak 4y ago
  Doesn’t matter what you actually do, you get the benefits of shaking off all the barnacles doing any rewrite or rearchitectire.
• jeroenhd 4y ago
  The difference may be that they're sticking with their own data center but they don't have a mainframe setup. Mainframes come with expensive, locked out hardware, expensive maintenance, expensive experts, you name it. With modern open source tooling, ridiculously powerful graphics cards, easily accessible FPGAs and free data center hosting software like OpenStack, Kubernetes, and glusterfs you can replicate many of the features that made mainframes enticing many years ago. It'll require a heck of a lot of work to get the same performance out of a custom built solution, but long term it's probably cheaper than relying on IBM. I doubt that they'll be saving any money by moving to the cloud unless they're horribly inefficient with their contracts right now. Just moving away from mainframes alone should save a significant buck, but if they were planning on restructuring their digital infrastructure anyway then now is probably the best time.
• mbesto 4y ago
  This is 100% reasonable and plausible. It's perfectly acceptable that one F500 company can see savings by using cloud and others see increased costs.
• dx034 4y ago
  That's how you do it. You don't stick with on-prem but just build your own cloud. At that size, AWS won't really buy hardware much cheaper than you. And while you can't build every cloud product that AWS has, the most popular ones are open source anyway.