Cloud Migration Is Back (If You Ignore the Actual Numbers) (indiadispatch.com) 23
An anonymous reader shares a report: The cloud migration narrative that powered tech valuations during the pandemic is attempting a comeback, but the underlying data suggests a more complex story.
UBS's new survey of IT services reveals a striking disconnect between industry expectations and customer reality. While executives proclaim "2025 will be far better than what we've seen in 2024," their enterprise clients report having migrated merely 15% of workloads to the cloud, with the remainder presenting increasingly complex challenges.
The numbers are particularly telling: Growth rates for major cloud providers AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud have declined from pandemic peaks of 40-50% to 10-20%. IT budgets for 2024, meanwhile, are projected to be "flattish to up very slightly, maybe a couple percent," marking a significant departure from the explosive growth of recent years.
UBS's new survey of IT services reveals a striking disconnect between industry expectations and customer reality. While executives proclaim "2025 will be far better than what we've seen in 2024," their enterprise clients report having migrated merely 15% of workloads to the cloud, with the remainder presenting increasingly complex challenges.
The numbers are particularly telling: Growth rates for major cloud providers AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud have declined from pandemic peaks of 40-50% to 10-20%. IT budgets for 2024, meanwhile, are projected to be "flattish to up very slightly, maybe a couple percent," marking a significant departure from the explosive growth of recent years.
I know why (Score:3)
Good. I make good money migrating them BACK (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There are even companies that outsources their network management to external suppliers like Colt. (Would not recommend)
I've actually seen the reverse already (Score:4, Insightful)
de-migration. I knew this was going to happen. Someone in the government gets a recurring cloud bill and doesn't want to pay the cost anymore. They come up with estimates of the cost to go back to on-prem and do so.
My view is that it's hard to come up with a case where the cloud saves much money for anyone. Even if you got rid of some of your IT support, you'd be stuck getting more cloud developers to do the same things you had your hardware guys doing on-prem - troubleshooting and monitoring.
The government likes the idea of cloud because they hated all those independent data centers and wanted them all concentrated under some central bureaucrat's control. But that isn't enough to make it happen in a world where line-item funding of programs happens. If you don't control the $$$, you don't control where and what the computers are.
Re: I've actually seen the reverse already (Score:2)
The government likes the idea of cloud because they hated all those independent data centers and wanted them all concentrated under some central bureaucrat's control.
If that was their thinking, then it backfired. Bigly. I've seen a few "encloudified" operations. And their owners had effectively lost track [xkcd.com] of where their stuff was being hosted.
Re:I've actually seen the reverse already (Score:4, Informative)
My view is that it's hard to come up with a case where the cloud saves much money for anyone.
There are four areas where cloud hosting saves money, in my experience:
1. E-mail hosting. I've got one or two clients with ten-or-fewer employees who still on-prem, and with no real compliance requirements, something like Axigen or Mailcow are serviceable, but if you're of ANY size and scale, letting Google or Microsoft host your e-mail is a much better idea than keeping on-prem Exchange alive.
2. SaaS, for finger-pointing reasons. If you have an on-prem EMR software, it's either ridiculously customized for some highly specific use case, or you hate yourself. Letting another company charge you and handle both security and liability is a much better idea for most medical facilities, and it's just one example of where part of the blame is 'finger pointing'.
3. IaaS, correctly configured for elastic loads. Many years ago, when Alexa was a traffic stat counting website instead of a music playing kitchen timer, the 5-year graph on IRS.gov was amusing. Around April 1, traffic shot up to some ten times the usual traffic, then April 16, it dropped like a rock again. Does it make sense to have enough servers to handle the maximum peak load for three weeks a year? Or, would it make more sense to have it on something like AWS, where one pays for the needed resources for the three weeks they're needed, and then contract the resources again after the rush ends?
4. New businesses who don't know what they need yet. As a new startup with no customers yet, will a moderately-spec'd Poweredge R750, a Fortigate 100F, and 500Mbit sync on a /29 be enough? Or should one get a $250,000 rack, a /24, and another $250,000 rack in a different time zone 'just in case'? While a $100/month AWS bill can certainly balloon to the sort of numbers where on-prem starts being cheaper, it's nearly impossible to tell what is needed when the company is just starting.
Of course, 3 and 4 are how The Cloud came to its current position. Some startups were successful, and thus are coming to the realization that renting someone else's computer is only cheaper when you need 10% of that computer, rather than 100% of it.
Re: I've actually seen the reverse already (Score:3)
There are a ton of variations for #3 - its the same problem as #1, actually. If you need scale but the problem is completely outside your core business, it makes more sense to pay for the cloud service than maintain your own. In both cases though you are completely outsourcing the problem, so comparing the relative costs of on-prem vs cloud infra is effectively someone else's problem.
For most purposes the argument for cloud vs on-prem is an IaaS discussion - and ultimately the main argument is elasticity.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the internet is reliable that seems to make sense.
When the internet fails then you start to love your local servers.
Local servers aren't just for EMR. If you work in the process industry you definitely don't want network disruptions or latency to corrupt your production.
Cloud saves money same way eating out does (Score:3)
So EVERYONE moved to the cloud, typically a hyperscaler. We're moving back a lot of infrastructure off of it because:
1. The costs went up
2. The costs are projected to go up even more.
For some, absolutely, cloud is the way to go. If you're a startup, it makes sense. If you have dynamic needs, it makes sense. If you're a 5 pers
Our company plans on going back (Score:4, Informative)
The company I work for, moved all of our workstations to VMware cloud. They have now realized that it costs much more, have signed up for a single point of failure, poor GPU performance for those who need it... The dream of shared hardware resources saving money is not really working as promised. They are now planning a move back to under the desk computers. I guess for the current state of HW technology, cloud has touched it's economic ceiling.
You must have gotten a good deal (Score:2)
The company I work for, moved all of our workstations to VMware cloud. They have now realized that it costs much more, have signed up for a single point of failure, poor GPU performance for those who need it... The dream of shared hardware resources saving money is not really working as promised. They are now planning a move back to under the desk computers. I guess for the current state of HW technology, cloud has touched it's economic ceiling.
Last I checked, the VMWare license cost as much, if not more, than good hardware. Hard to justify all that, especially if you've ever used VMWare remotely and saw how glitchy it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? They got rid of PCs (desktop/laptop) from people who need GPus and replaced them with Chromebooks that go to the web to get graphics done?
The cloud is a trap (Score:2)
Run away
If you ignore the numbers, yeah (Score:3)
"Growth rates for major cloud providers AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud have declined from pandemic peaks of 40-50% to 10-20%"
That's not a reversal, that's a saturated market. Until that number is negative, it's not a reversal.
(I do expect it will go negative within the next few years, since could it, in fact, more expensive and less reliable. The only companies who will continue going to the cloud are those who have a mission critical app they can't operate without from a vendor who only offers continued upgrade and security patches on a cloud migration - at several times the cost. Why, yes, I do know such a company, why do you ask?)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Also, the world we're living in, where a 10-20% yearly growth is reason for worries because it's not again the same 50% of a completely outlier period.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. 20% grown could easily be a 100% price increase on a 40% loss of customers.
And sinking? (Score:2)
I expect a lot more loss from cloud. And speaking as a computer professional (including a B.Sc) and a long career on mainframes, PCs, and servers, let me repeat what I've been saying for years: there's no difference between "the cloud" and timesharing on a mainframe. And management is finally realizing this, and wants more control over what's on their systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but there's the allure that literally everything can be done from the CEOs laptop. Going back to mainframes meaning having more smelly nerds showing up at the office!
It keeps coming back and forth (Score:2)
On your marks, get set, blow. (Score:2)
Before you migrate to the Cloud.. Get Tor and ... (Score:2)
2025 will be far better... (Score:2)
Yeah? Don't count on it.