I've posted about this topic in the past, but I think it bears repeating. Simply stated, we find most users do either no financial analysis when considering the Public Cloud, or do a nominal (read poor) analysis. It makes no sense for an organization not to understand the expected costs of any decision they make in their business. So why is the Public Cloud any different?
In your personal life, would you ever agree to something where you didn't know what expected costs were going to be? I'm guessing that you wouldn't. So why do people do it in business? I was alway taught that you spend your company's money the same way you would spend your own...carefully, and with your eyes open to total cost.
Show me a company that has spent LESS money in the Public Cloud than they initially expected. That would be like finding a unicorn...it doesn't exist. But, in most transactions for on-premises equipment, we get squeezed on the price almost every time. I wish organizations purchased on-premises IT equipment and software like they do Public Cloud. I'd be very rich.
I'm not against the Public Cloud. In some cases, they provide a good value to an organization when the use case is right for it. For most cases, it's more expensive, but unless you do the math, you're bound to overpay with the Public Cloud.
I'm pretty good at math, and when you compare the total costs of the Public Cloud to on-premises, it's not even close.
Here are the facts:
Don't just take my word for it. Do the financial analysis! At some point, if you don't do a fair financial analysis, it's going to be found out, and the mantra of "Cloud first" isn't really going to mean much when you're asked to explain why you spent so much more for the same result.
Think about it. And then DO THE MATH!
Tim Joyce, Founder, Roundstone Solutions