What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

Thu Jan 27 14:17:30 UTC 2022

>
> I do disagree, if I understood the argument right. If the argument is
> 'cloud makes no business sense to anyone'.
>

That wasn't the argument I intended to make, but I see how it could have
been interpreted that way.

There are absolutely a ton of use cases where cloud usage makes absolute
sense, from both business and technical perspectives. I do not agree that
'nobody should be using cloud providers'. There is a place for its use, and
it can be very beneficial when used strategically and thoughtfully.
However, as we see every time a major cloud provider has an outage, lots of
people don't use it strategically or thoughtfully, and that's really my
point.

Randy said it most succinctly I think. Cloud providers don't reduce your
risk, they just have different risks to consider.

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:32 AM Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 09:16, Mark Tinka <mark at tinka.africa> wrote:
>
> > > Saving 12 months of opex $ sounds great, except when you lose 18
> > > months of opex $ in 2 days completely outside of your ability to
> control.
> >
> > I don't disagree.
> >
> > What this does, though, is democratize access into the industry. For a
> > simple business model that is serving a small community with a handful
> > of eyeballs, not trying to grow forever but put food on the table, it's
> > somewhere to start.
>
> I do disagree, if I understood the argument right. If the argument is
> 'cloud makes no business sense to anyone'.
>
> Doing the 1st server properly costs several million euros a year,
> since you need competent 24/7 staffing, with sick leaves, holidays (in
> 1st world countries where this is a thing) and attrition taken into
> account. Staff who can do infra, compute, storage, networking (that's
> 4 separate teams usually, each needing overhead for 24/7) who are
> comfortable with working nights.
>
> This argument 'no one should be using x, x is a fad' happens when
> every new technology appears, literally people object to using paper
> and pen, as it's too convenient for writing thereby causing quality of
> writing to decrease compared to stone tablets. Followed by the
> evilness of books, newspapers, radio, tv, internet and so forth.
> And always these fringe opinions that something is outright bad/good
> gives away to more nuanced views.
>
> I wonder if these people who object to using the cloud, object to
> using 3rd party data centres outright? Or accept that you don't have
> to build the physical premises where you put the compute, or do you
> have to own that too? If you don't have to own that, why not? Since it
> would seem a difficult position to at same time argue you can't use
> cloud because of lack of control, but you can use 3rd party data
> centres, now you're still lacking control on many types of outages.
>
> If we need to own everything, where does it end? What can we get from
> 3rd parties? NAND gate? Or can we at least assume we don't have to
> build hydrogen atoms? That we get hydrogen atoms from elsewhere and
> start from that? Why is it that always the objection is something
> contemporary but the rest of the stack is fine to be provided by a 3rd
> party? If you believe you're living in a special period of time, where
> there is fundamental change to this, your position is statistically
> weak.
>
>
> --
>   ++ytti
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220127/e84a3642/attachment.html>