My comment is still awaiting moderation. Curious, since there are other posts after I commented. Oh well, here's the repeat: tl;dr : Disagreement != insanity.

My comment is still awaiting moderation. Curious, since there are other posts after I commented. Oh well, here's the repeat: tl;dr : Disagreement != insanity. Your unwillingness to accept possibilities you haven't encountered or avoided doesn't mean those possibilities don't exist or can always be avoided. Point #1: Bandwidth + power is sometimes cheaper than bandwidth + CPU cycle costs in many cases. If you have a massive spike, you may not worry about down time, but you will worry about the bill. There are plenty of occasions where the cost is unacceptable by comparison. And this is even after initial investment. Point #2: If you stick to a generic storage or CPU package that needs no modification, then yes, go with the cloud. But when, you need to switch priority for some CPU threads without jumping through hoops or dynamically allocate high-priority data to primary search spaces and low-priority data to archives, then you'll suddenly find it comforting to know you have physical access to the servers and primary control interfaces. Point #3: Evaporates quite quickly when the U.S. government says cloud data isn't technically stored by you, so they can do whatever they please with it. Since you're not the cloud provider, and it's off-site, they can claim "it's not your data" and use it as evidence. Read : Megaupload. Don't laugh, that's an actual argument used often by them during court cases. You store your data in the cloud and if you want it to remain private, it better be encrypted. Bottom line: Any extra "Stuff" you add to the stack is another layer that can potentially fail. More "stuff" doesn't make a better platform, but BETTER "stuff" does. There's something very comforting about saying "Hey, Mary. We just lost power and we're running backups. Could you make sure the generators kick in?" and hearing back, "Sure, I'm on it." --- In addition to this comment, I'd like to point out here (since I'm not gonna wait for that comment to be approved too), there were some comments saying pretty much IT folks are shaking in their boots because the "cloud" makes them obsolete. Who do they think run the "cloud's" IT? Magical pixies? Granted, some local IT people might be worried their jobs may no longer be needed, but if you earn your keep, your job will be safe. Or you'll have no trouble finding work elsewhere.