I don't know that 37Signals counts as a "major enterprise". Their Cloud exodus can't have been more than a few dozen servers, right?

Meanwhile AWS is growing at 20%/year, Azure at 33% and GCP at 35%. That doesn't seem compatible with any kind of major cloud repatriation trend.

GEICO is moving away from the cloud because their IT is a joke. They had a horrible on-prem infrastructure, so they moved to the cloud not knowing how, and they made the same mistakes in the cloud as on-prem, plus the usual mistakes every cloud migration runs into. They are moving away from the cloud because their new VP's entire career is focused on running her own hardware. What we know about their new setup is absolutely bonkers (like, K8s-on-OpenStack-on-K8s bonkers). Look to them for what not to do.

37signals is like the poster child for NIH syndrome. They keep touting cost savings as the reason for the move, but from what I have gathered, they basically did nothing to save cost in the cloud. It is trivial to save 75% off AWS's list price. They will even walk you through it, they literally want you to save money. That, plus using specific tech in specific ways, allows you to reap major benefits of modern designs while reducing cost more. 37signals didn't seem to want to go that route. But they do love to build their own things, so servers would be a natural thing for them to DIY.

Almost every argument against the cloud - cost inefficiency, fear of vendor lock-in, etc - has easy solutions that make the whole thing extremely cost competitive, if not a way better value, than trying to become your own cloud hosting provider. It's very hard to estimate the real world costs, both known and unknown, of DIY hosting (specifically the expertise, or lack of it, and the impacts from doing it wrong, which is very likely to happen if cloud hosting isn't your core business). But it's a 100% guarantee that you will never do it better than AWS.

AI is the only place I could reasonably imagine somebody having an on-prem advantage. At the moment, we still live in a world where that hardware isn't a commodity in the way every other server is. So you might just be faster to deploy, or cheaper to buy, with AI gear. Storage is similar but not nearly as tight a market. But that will change eventually once either the hype bubble bursts, or there's more gear for cheaper for the cloud providers to sell.

It's a short simple post that comes down to this:

> Weekly explains that “just running legacy applications in the cloud is prohibitively expensive,” highlighting how lift-and-shift approaches often fail to deliver expected benefits.

Yes, if you have a mature business without active development at a scale where compute/storage costs is a substantial accounting line item, then it makes sense to run on hardware that doesn't have the flexibility and cost of the cloud.

There is an in-between that makes much more sense for most though. Running on provisioned bare metal. Lots of providers offer this as a better performance/price option where you don't have to deal with provisioning hardware but do everything else from the OS+maintenance and up.

At one company we used large bare-metal machine instances provisioned for stable parts of the application architecture (e.g. database and webapp instances) and the cloud for new development where it made sense to leverage capabilities, e.g. DynamoDB with cross-region replication.

There are certain workloads that have never been really economical to run in cloud. Cloud economics is based on multi-tenancy, eg if you have a lot of hardware that is sitting idle a lot of the time, then cloud may be economical for you as the cloud provider can share it between you and others.

Cloud is also good for episodic use of expensive exotic systems like HPC and GPU fleets, if you don’t need them all the time- I call this serial multi-tenancy.

Cloud is not economical for massive storage, especially if you’re not willing to use backup solutions and reduced availability. For example, AWS S3 default keeps multiple copies of uploaded data; this is not comparable to typical on-premises RAID 1 or RAID 3. You can save money with reduced redundancy storage but then you have to take on more of the reliability burden. Likewise compute is cheap if you’re buying multi-tenant instances, but if you want dedicated instances or bare metal, then the economics aren’t nearly as attractive.

Cloud is also good for experimentation and rapid development - it’s so much faster to click a few buttons than to go through the hardware acquisition processes at many enterprises.

The companies that regret cloud due to financial concerns usually make two mistakes.

First, as noted above, they pay for premium services that are not directly comparable to on-prem, or they use workloads in cloud that are not cloud economical, or both.

Second, they don’t constrain random usage enough. It is super easy for a developer doing some testing to spin up thousands of dollars of bill. And it’s even worse if they leave it at the end of the day and go home- it’s still racking up hourly usage. And it’s downright ugly if they forget it and move on to something else. You have to be super disciplined to not spin up more than you need and turn it off as soon as you’re done with it.

What I was surprised to find in some big orgs is the processes have not evolved to be cloud first. There is lack of maturity, still a chain of committees, approvals, and manual processes; risk management still treats the services as a giant intranet, deployments are not scripted, ad hoc designs. Resources are placed in vnets so that they resemble a system they already know, and comes with all the associated risks.

Kjell's Law: the cost of a platform eventually exceeds the cost of the one it replaced. But each cost is in a different budget.

We seem to have replaced cooling and power and a grumpy sysadmin with storage and architects and unhappy developers.

It’s the same old MBA cycle we had with onshoring / offshoring. Everyone wants to build their resume so they have to change things.

In this cycle a new MBA comes in wants to make an impact so does a cloud transition. Then they move on and the next guy comes in, wants to make an impact so moves things back in house. Repeat until some new fad comes along.

You can have a 100Gb uplink on a dedicated fibre for less than 1000$/month now. Which is insanely less than cloud bandwidth. Of course there are tons of other costs, but that alone can suffice to justify moving out of the cloud for bandwidth intensive app.

Chat, feeds and moderation run on AWS for us. Video on the other hand is bandwidth intensive. So we run the coordinator infra on AWS, but the SFU edge network on many different providers.

I think the cloud is good for some things, and not so great for others. S3 is fairly cost effective. RDS is expensive, bandwidth is crazy etc.

(5M a year spend on AWS atm.)

> "While the cloud repatriation debate often focuses on the binary choice between cloud and on-premises, there’s a third path emerging: staying in the cloud while embracing alternative technologies and architectures."

I think the potential of using "less managed" with K8s etc. rather than fully self-managed is relatively untapped.

The article is incredibly thin on details.

In my experience, it comes down to two factors:

1. Egress cost. Cloud hosting providers have absolutely insane egress pricing. It's beyond stupid at this point, if you want to host anything bandwidth-intensive.

2. Storage pricing.

It doesn't seem to say in the article and it's not really discussed in these "LEAVING THE CLOUDS!!" articles, but what are these orgs doing for on-prem? Given the broadcom acquisition of vmware, rebuilding massive vsphere clusters like it's 2010 doesn't seem like a good long term play. Are they moving to kubernetes? Some other hypervisor?

Well, major companies aren't ditching the cloud and there is no evidence for a trend otherwise. And 37signals isn't a major organization for any of the big cloud providers. They are just a rounding error.

Meanwhile, from Q3 Amazon earnings:

* AWS segment sales increased 19% year-over-year to $27.5 billion.

That means AWS brought in $4.3 BILLION more dollars in Q3 2024 vs 2023.

That's a huge amount of incremental revenue growth. If the net movement of workloads were out of the cloud, then it would have to show up in the results of Intel / TSMC / Equinix et. al.

I just took a look, and Equinix quarterly revenue is $2.1B.

Almost any story about cloud repatriation is a story about a failure of the market to act competitively rather than someone actually able to do it for less money than the cloud providers can. The big providers margins are crazy, like over 50% which is normal for a software / service business but they are essentially hardware businesses.

I prefer this https://blogs.idc.com/2024/10/28/storm-clouds-ahead-missed-e... more nuanced article.

I can see how AI workloads makes clouds look expensive.

I think control is maybe a bigger factor than cost these days. Being able to hold anyone accountable at all seems to be an operational superpower. Working with cloud vendor support is a torturous experience on a good day. It also doesn't matter how expensive the virtual machine is if there isn't one available to be provisioned.

I know it's kind of harsh, but owning the whole vertical and having the power to instantly fire anyone for giving an Azure-tier response is why these companies are doing it in my mind. Waiting on a 3rd party to find their own ass with a whole S&R team every time you need help is quite exhausting. I've never worked with an IT vendor and thought "damn these people are so responsive I can't dream of doing it better myself".

> “Ten years into that journey, GEICO still hadn’t migrated everything to the cloud, their bills went up 2.5x, and their reliability challenges went up quite a lot too.”

yes this would make cloud cost a lot without any of the benefits lol

They will want cloud-like APIs on-premises and most will implement OpenStack. The second wave of migrations to the cloud will be even quicker for these companies making their way back to on premises.

Recently, i've come to realize one real use of those clouds was to provide a good US-EU network connection. If you want to provide both continent users with correct bandwidth to your service, you have no choice but to have them connect to a datacenter on their own continent. Public data transit across the atlantic is simply miserable.

Then, because they probably have private atlantic cables, you can replicate at good reliable speed.

>Cloud repatriation is undoubtedly not for start-ups or scale-ups still on their way to profitability or product-market fit. For such companies, the cloud abstracts all the complexity of IT infrastructure and lets their teams focus on the business challenges.

Hmm, what about companies that are expected to be stronger-than-average in computer science & software engineering, and might not yet have as much competitive advantage in business momentum or financial resources to begin with?

Would it be better to leverage the strongest area of expertise or not?

Tough decision, which I would be very conservative about making.

Decade 0 of The Cloud didn't obscure very much of the heavens and it remained sunny with only a slight chance of scattered data.

Now on first pass (decade 01) it looks like the cloud is ideal if you have huge amounts of data that needs to be shared with just about anybody anywhere at any time 24/7.

I know I'm not in that league, so I can't speak from a position of expertise, but after this much dust has settled it does look like it would be most widely useful mainly for data which is not the least bit confidential.

Especially data which is completely public, or intended to be public more so than was possible any other way.

And then only as long as the ongoing cost is "virtually" insignificant compared to the fully amortized on-premises in-house alternative.

Seems like it would really make sense to do this kind of financial analysis before deciding how to best handle the data that you want the world to have access to.

Probably a good idea to consider how to best handle the other kind of data that you don't ever want to share with the world at all, which is a whole different equation. Any cloud in the way and it may be more challenging to break through the ceiling for the sky to be the limit on that one.

At least this seems to be the kind of thing that has been consistent since the overcast started rolling in.

But what do I know?

I'm just an earth-bound observer ;)

This is partially the result of cloud providers and partially business leadership. They, for whatever reason, insufficiently educated their clients on migration requirements. Lift & shift from on-premises to cloud only work for emergency. The shifted resources must be converted to cloud stack, or the cost will be multiples of on-prem costs. Business leadership was (is?) ignoring IT teams screaming of the problem with lift & shift.

Now, businesses shifting back to on-prem because they are still uneducated on how to make cloud useful. They will just shift all non-core activities to XaaS vendors, reducing their own cloud managed solutions.

Source: dealing with multiple non-software, tech firms that are doing just that, shifting own things back to on-prem, non-core resources to XaaS.

I would guess that all of these companies that are moving back are throwing in the towel on their cloud migration/modernization plans under the guise of "repatriation" when it's really poor execution without any responsibility.

How can we get ride of vendor lock-in and have fait market competition get prices down for cloud?

It must be possible to make cloud more cost effective via specialization versus every company building the same infrastructure again and again.

All large orgs start running their own cloud infra at some point. So this has been a case for very long.

Cloud is great until you have Sooooo much money and the running costs is too damn high.

> For instance, companies can utilize cloud native NVMe-based storage solutions for their database or implement custom database hosting on cloud compute instances using Kubernetes, all while maintaining the cloud’s scalability and flexibility, avoiding any lock-in.

I will always dispute this. K8s is also a lock-in, it does not magically free you from issues, it only brings in a separate set of issues, overheads and problems.

Telco, and I'm sure other industries, are adopting hybrid. Many things core to the business are being yanked out of the cloud.

Seems like CIOs are finally listening to the Grey beards.

It comes down to cost, especially cost predictability. And now businesses have more "expertise" to manage their servers after all these years. Obvously, not everything is migrated out of the cloud.

Cloud used to be cheap... it clearly isn't anymore.

There is a ton of companies in the cloud, that do not know- how to do cloud infra. So they park there administration- at their integrating customers. Which then ditch the avalanche of burning and rebuild huts.

A meta-standard for deployment and infrastructure setup is needed and should be forced down the throats of the resisting patient.

I will use an opportunity to confirm that cloud is ill-suited for almost all but niche business cases and majority of users were dragged into cloud platforms either by free credits or (my suspicion) some grey kick-back schemes with C-level guys.

At my current project (Fortune 500 saas company, was there for both on-prem to cloud and then cloud-to-cloud migration):

a) Resources are terribly expensive. Usual tricks you find online (spot instances) usually cannot be applied for some specific work related reason. In our estimates, in contrast to even the hw/sw list-prices, cloud is 5x-10x more expensive, of course depending on the features you are planning to use.

b) There is always a sort of "direction" cloud provider pushes you into: in my case, costs between VMs and Kubernetes are so high, we get almost weekly demands to make the conversion, even though Kubernetes for some of the scenarios we have don't make any sense.

c) Even though we are spending 6 figures, now maybe even 7 figures on the infrastructure monthly, priority support answer that we receive are borderline comical and in-line with one response we received when we asked why our DB service was down, quote: "DB has experienced some issues so it was restarted."

d) When we were having on-prem, some new features asked from ops side, were usually implemented / investigated in a day or so. Nowadays, in most cases, answers are available after week or so of investigation, because each thing has its own name and lingo with different cloud providers. This can be solved with specific cloud certifications, but in real-world, we cannot pause the business for 6 months until all ops are completely knowledgeable about all inner workings of the currently popular cloud provider.

e) Performance is atrocious at times. That multi-tenancy some guys are mentioning here is for provider's benefit not for the customer. They cram ungodly amount of workload on machines, that mostly works, until it doesn't and when it does not, effects are catastrophic. Yes, you can have isolation and dedicated resources, but a)

f) Security and reliability features are overly exaggerated. From the observable facts, in the last year, we had 4 major incidents lasting several hours strictly related to the platform (total connectivity failure, total service failure, complete loss of one of the sites, etc).

In the end, for anyone who wants to get deeper into this, check what Ahrefs wrote about cloud.

9 cents per gigabyte egress is the core of why companies are leaving the cloud.

That’s the start point that gets them thinking about all the other ways it’s a bad idea.

“The cloud is where Moore’s law goes to die.”

cloud was supposed to be the cheap one stop shop where sheer numbers make overall prices low. but instead, they priced themselves out of existence. slowly, but surely. when you can run any offered services on your own for cheaper, then you know their entire business model is based on entrapment and and vendor lock-in, making leaving them engineering impossibility.

Serious businesses are not doing this.

I think non-cloud is the new monolith, which is fantastic.

"Major organizations like 37signals and GEICO". Sorry, what? Citing two companies? And how does a $37bn company compare to 37signals?

Such an odd pair of companies to choose. Is DHH friends with the author?

I'd be more interested in statistics about total cloud vs onprem spend across all companies, over time, to support assertion that "companies are ditching the cloud"

A very poor article