Then came the move to AWS and Azure, again because the business case made sense. A big part of this was Microsoft being good at selling their products in a bundle, so that getting into Azure sort of just made sense because of how well the IT-operations side benefitted from moving into things like Azure AD (now Entra ID for whatever reason), Azure Automation instead of scheduled tasks and so on. If your IT-operations infrastructure is already largely in Azure then your development will also be in Azure because it’s going to be such a tiny blip on your Azure bill that nobody will ever notice.
With the price hikes, and also just how complicated it is to actually run and maintain IT-Operations in Azure (I can’t speak for AWS) we’re now in a world where more and more organisations here in Denmark are looking to get out of Azure/AWS to reduce cost, and many have already made the move.
Of course no one is leaving Office365, so many of us are mostly just trying to broker better deals with Microsoft.
It's an endless loop, I think. I've observed a very different behaviour in other parts of the world, where companies which either migrated away from the cloud already, or companies which never moved to the cloud to begin with, are now moving things into the cloud and other managed services in order to better focus on their core competencies.
Dropbox, for instance, shifted everything out of AWS in 2014 -- but are now moving a lot of their corporate infra back into AWS in order to focus on effective and efficient storage, which is what they're good at, without having to build everything else themselves. Likewise hedge funds - if you look at job postings for a lot of systematic trading firms (e.g. Jane Street, HRT, 2Sigma, etc.), you'll find loads of them are hiring extensively for people with cloud experience, because there's been a sort of wake-up moment where companies are breaking free of the idea that everyone can be Google, and realising that you can't build everything in-house if you only have 1000 employees.
So, interesting to hear of a move in the opposite direction in Denmark. I'm sure that ten years down the line, a new generation of engineers will be coming in and asking, "Why in the world are we managing all of this infrastructure on our own?"
So anyway, more like the reverse: cloud is colocation but expensive.
You can certainly use colo to provide the facilities most need from cloud infrastructure.
Just stuffing a server in someone's rack isn't cloud, but larger installations are often managed in similar ways.
The questions become:
1. Does it make sense to dump our special features in the stack, or move them to a higher level in the stack? 2. Does Azure have comparable capabilities for the LinkedIn stack? 3. Is LinkedIn worth it to Azure to sell to?
---
Often times, "at scale", you can support custom solutions outside of cloud providers that are purpose-built, and often times more resilient and efficient than the cloud providers.
AWS has taken a very interesting approach of building an incredibly wide set of solutions to support every customer under the sun, and their approach to being "customer obsessed" leads to them building super niche solutions if the deal is worth it.
I'm not sure how Google and Azure handle these engagements.
Microsoft will allow you access to the PM of the product if you are big enough, but his answer will be a not-exactly-committing "in 3 years" because their roadmap is full.
Microsoft owns both, so that question gets convoluted. It's not really about whether LinkedIn pays Azure enough to care.
The flip side is that it is freakishly expensive to keep doing that, and telco is not a business that is freakishly profitable.
I'm watching efforts like Azure Operator Nexus (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/operator-nexus/overv...) which looks to be taking a stab at this, but even there, its more like OpenShift on specific hardware with some Azure dust, rather than a remaking of Azure primitives like redundancy for the telco universe.
I haven't followed what's happened since it was spun out, but I know that Network Cloud was heavily OpenStack based so I'd would be interesting to see how that may have changed but I no longer work in the Telco space either.
[0]: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/improving-the-cloud-f...
> vs ""modern tech"" FOMO
Very tough decision, I'll need two MBA degrees to figure this out.
The folks who are too senior arent sufficiently technical to understand. The folks who understand benefit from the key-person risk and premiums paid, and thus are disincentivized to challenge the ROI comparison.
That's another great point; with the on-prem system where we run our own massive k8s/vm/data lake cloud, every team just throws things at it willy nilly and even though we know how to calculate total operating cost it's very difficult to set up backpressure to individual orgs and their budgets so there is quite a bit of waste I feel. With something like AWS the billing system is very detailed and is easy to attach to teams upfront. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that things are more efficient due to teams being incentivized to pay attention, but I kinda like it.
Costs more money but easier on the cash flow.