this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
453 points (90.2% liked)
Technology
73727 readers
4440 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My company spent last decade automating moving entire organizations and all their software to the cloud. This decade weve been automating moving entire organizations off the cloud. Sometimes to private clouds but most of the time to on prem hardware just like the old n times.
So many were sold a magical fairytale of huge cost savings and reliability but were greated with an entirely different reality.
I will never understand why businesses want to let someone else control their infrastructure. Putting your money-maker in someone else's hands is just telling them that it's OK to give you the squeeze later.
Because managers really like giving contracts to those giving a presentation in an exotic resort and have a great service agreement so all blame for mishaps can be shifted away from their career.
Also, at least in here, lease costs (like all as-a-service things) are considered to be flexible while own hardware and specially workforce are static costs. And no one wants to increase static costs, even if it's clear as daylight that flexible cost only flexes upward over time unless the company suddenly shrinks by quite a lot.
In many cases, I'd say it's because they aren't IT or IT Security focused businesses. A pizza shop, clothing retailer, or whatnot, needs IT stuff to function, but that's not the focus of their business. Hiring an IT team at IT worker rates is expensive, especially as a support/tertiary role for your business.
We moved out entire stack to the cloud, knowing full well we're gonna bring it back in the future. We hosted our apps on traditional servers and server maintenance was a nightmare, we didn't have the capacity and our application uptime is critical to our operations, so we strategically moved everything to the cloud so we can not worry about the maintenance for a bit while we took the time to rebuild our infrastructure properly with load balancing and high availability, and refactored our applications, we're now slowly moving things back.
Someone else controls your infra no matter what. Say you've got a data center, you run all your applications on site. Great, until your ISP or electrical or DNS provider or registrar fuck you.
Whoever decides to trust Microsoft will always get burned. Amazon and Google not much better.
This case is the result of government sanctions, not Microsoft arbitrarily doing shit.
You mean besides abandoning whole fields of research and selling out to the government routinely?
I'm down to criticize Microsoft on things they actually deserve to be criticized on. This scenario isn't one of those, though.
So if I paid a lawyer to hold certain documents for me, but the lawyer was afraid the EU would somehow hurt their profits, and then the lawyer said, you can't have your documents, with no judicial review, no hold ordered, no orders, you think that's ok?
Companies operating in certain jurisdictions are subject to various forms of export control and other types of compliance policies when dealing with foreign entities. I’m sure this Russian company was aware of that when choosing Microsoft as their cloud provider. They probably should have chose a Russian cloud provider instead, though that might have exposed them to more of Putin’s corruption while protecting them from anti-Putin sanctions. Kind of a lose-lose either way for them I guess.
? This company was in India?
Yeah? It was a company in India owned by Russians?
Yep, i've seen this exact pattern at three diffrent companies - the cloud repatriation movement is gaining serious momentum as CFOs finally see the true long-term costs versus the initial promises.
The cloud is often more expensive though.