this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
83 points (90.3% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
2952 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cloud. Businesses went all in on cloud under this illusion of stable costs, but costs go up and contol/support have gone down, and I'm seeing businesses spin on-prem back up.
Id go so far as to say SaaS in general. Small startups are paying $5000/month to send emails and we've come to the point where inboxes are monopolized and if you don't pay up to a cloud provider your emails end up in spam.
Take this and repeat for everything. Monopolize, ratchet up the costs, profit.
Hybrid approach is not bad
I totally agree...the best solution for the specific problem. "Cloud" was the buzzword solution to every problem for a few years and it wasn't great in a lot of cases. High I/O home grown apps to be used from a single campus don't need to be in the cloud. Bulk archive storage doesn't need to be in the cloud, things like lecture recordings from 10+ years.
1000% this. Without giving away too much information, I work(ed) for a cloud provider (not one of the big ones, there are a surprising number of smaller ones in the field you've probably never heard of before). I quit this week to take a position in local government with some quaint, on-prem setup.
Mix all that together and then put the remaining pressure on the human aspect still holding things up and there's a collapse coming. Once businesses get so big they're no longer "obligated" to provide support, they'll start charging you for it. This has always been a thing of course, anyone who's worked enterprise agreements knows that. But in classic corpo values, they're closing the gap. Pay more for support, get less in return. They'll keep turning that dial until something breaks catastrophically, that's capitalism baby.
And that's why you go with the big guys (and pay a premium for it).
I work for a SaaS company that offers a cloud version as well as a software license. We only support the big 3 because everyone else is just keeping their systems up with chewing gum and duct tape, and it's infuriatingly inconsistent. No way of offering a reasonable SLA or for our support guys to dig into an infra problem. And this includes relatively big players like Ali, Tencent, Yandex, DO or OVH.
In the end, 95% of customers pay less if they choose the cloud version, only if you have 24/7 steady load (and a high one) will it be cheaper to pay for infra, SREs, licenses and support.
Basically you save money on tech/support because of scale.
So you triple and quadruple your sales and marketing spend to get more business.
In the end it just doesn't work, except the smaller guys and a lot of them are just hanging on as the stacks get more complicated.
Aws and gcloud are thickening the stack and driving everyone else out of business.
"Repatriating"
Is this the word firms use to kinda hide their error, which was moving to the cloud?
Disagree. People are terrible using the cloud, and often are doing lift and shift instead of modernizing.
Incompetent users are the problem, not the cloud.
"Victim-shaming"
Completely disagree. This last March, Microsoft changed the storage limit per user on OneDrive for education from 1TB to 100GB, and users either had to delete a ton of files or pay for increased license/space. We ended up standing an on-prem file server back up shortly thereafter because we could not get our users and faculty to delete research data and could not afford to nearly double our cost expenditure. In my experience doing IT budget for years, cloud has meant that you cannot predict your yearly expenditures, Especially if you use your services that are funded in part by venture capital. Let's say you start using some cool research presentation project and suddenly the economy dips and they lose funding, the cost goes way up. Life cycle management has gone completely out the toilets in my experience with cloud products.
Well, if you did your budget planning with a loss leader that can happen. Did you get prices from AWS S3, Google Suite, Azure Blob storage, GCP, etc, or just blindly went back to what you knew?
We had been a university with office365 for several years, and the price change came well after the product comparison and decision was made. Once you are in an ecosystem like that the cost of changing is astronomical when you include migration labor, training, and loss of productivity during the transition. When you are a university with thousands of student, staff, and alumni accounts, and the office, mail, and authentication environments are integrated, it's realistically functionally impossible to migrate.
The student A1 licenses are 0 cost without upgrades, which is why it was chosen, but the storage change was a blindside. We had hundreds of accounts using over the 100GB of data (which was within TOS) and had tons of data in onedrive which had to be moved or we had to fork out per account. This was a bait and switch, plain and simple, and that is the issue with "cloud for everything" is you are at their mercy.
Didn't the 0 cost sound any alarms? Y'all thought that was sustainable?
I don't understand your disbelief here, the 2 major players in online email and account mgmt (for education) are Google and Microsoft and both are 0 cost, but the bait and switch is the limit lowering mid cycle, not even on the academic calendar. Now that exchange on-prem is essentially dead and Google and MS control email via blacklist politics, it's a captive market.
How is it a captive market if the whole discussion started with an on-prem migration?
Are militaries businesses in a wide sense?
Thinking of those "permissions for Ukraine to strike" being discussed and the reasons Armenia couldn't use Iskander missiles against Azerbaijan in 2020, and Azerbaijan apparently hasn't used Lora missiles after 2020.