This is a really flawed analysis, it ignores things like the cost and disruption of transition (both internally and to customers), the constant R&D needed to co

This is a really flawed analysis, it ignores things like the cost and disruption of transition (both internally and to customers), the constant R&D needed to continually improve the compute base hardware and software architecture, the people needed to do all this and their skills (which need constant improvement) and availability (the best people are not easily replaceable units of work and it takes time for new people to come up to speed), security, and more. It basically only looks at _estimated_ costs based on a very few cases. Many big software projects fail, and moving from cloud to in-premises (and vice-versa) is a big software and hardware project. Some of these factors are pro-cloud, some are anti-cloud depending on circumstances. Cost should not be the only determinant. My personal opinion is that cloud is currently a major security vulnerability. In a time where computer security is very obviously not a solved a problem, betting on a monoculture (similar to mono-crops in agriculture) means that if one major attack is successful then everything that depends on that cloud architecture is at risk (potato famine). So far we've been fairly lucky (as far as we know; it could be that compromises exist and are being exploited without doing anything so obvious as crashing the cloud). But all the eggs are typically in one basket. If the basket falls all the eggs break. On premise data centers can be compromised in the same way, but it's more work for the attacker and less profit, raising the barrier. Until we figure out how to truly secure compute infrastructure, security through obscurity (strangely enough) and diversity, by having every company build their own data center, seems to be better for the security of society overall (though any one company can still be compromised.) In part, it's the old distributed versus centralized argument. A highly variable distributed set of systems is more robust against attack than the monoculture and single point of failure of a centralized system, though a centralized system offers more control (and wow, CEO's really like centralized control for obvious reasons! It's a major flaw in their outlook, similar to why the Russian army is having problems because of their rigid top-down hierarchy.) Look to nature for examples of what survives. Insects are considered likely to be the last survivors on Earth, dinosaurs are (mostly) gone. /rant