We hear the message of hybrid cloud from all the incumbent vendors such as IBM, HPE, Lenovo, Dell, Oracle, Cisco, Netapp, EMC, etc, etc...all these vendors agree that the future is hybrid cloud. Yet these vendors need to ensure the enterprise customers stay with legacy infrastructure otherwise they would lose huge revenue when customer migrate to public cloud. Hence the message is hybrid cloud.
Some customers can not move to public cloud for some of the following reasons:
- Compliance. Yet this is rarely a reason as the big three (AWS, Azure, Google) have significant regulatory and security approvals.
- The applications do not run on x86 architecture. Lets say a customer has an application that only runs on IBM i-Series...Then cloud with the big three cloud vendors is simply not a viable choice.
If applications can be moved to cloud I would suggest public cloud is far more agile and is lower in cost:
Please note that for public cloud to be lower cost than legacy IT infrastructure significant changes need to occur. All applications need to be moved public cloud or SaaS, thereby eliminating datacentre infrastructure and significant IT staff costs. If we move most applications to public cloud, say 80% to cloud, yet we have 20% still remaining on-premise then we will continue to carry very expensive datacentre infrastructure and we will need to maintain staff in legacy “IT silos” to support this infrastructure, hence we can not achieve cost savings, with hybrid cloud our infrastructure costs will increase and complexity will increase as we need to support legacy environment and public cloud.
If organisations like Apple, Pentagon and CIA are using public cloud services rather than running it on their own infrastructure.....what hope does a much, much smaller organisation have to be build their own "private cloud" and still be competitive?
Private cloud working with "IT Silos" compared to Public Cloud with agile Devops where all infrastructure and services are code:
No comments:
Post a Comment