Why Are Some Companies Leaving the Cloud? | Leaving the Cloud

Over the past two years, we have seen an interesting trend: some companies are deciding to leave the cloud. This decision may seem counterintuitive, especially when industry giants such as AWS, GCP, and Azure constantly praise the benefits of the cloud, promising lower costs, optimized financial management, and improved stability and performance of infrastructures. However, behind the marketing rhetoric, the reality is sometimes different. While the cloud can indeed be advantageous in some cases, it does not necessarily meet the needs of all companies.

The questioning of cloud efficiency gained visibility in 2022, notably with David Heinemeier Hansson’s article “Why we’re leaving the cloud”, followed in 2023 by “We have left the cloud”. In these articles, Hansson explains why, after more than a decade of using the cloud via Amazon and Google, Basecamp and HEY decided to move away from this technology. The main reason cited is that for a mid-sized company with stable growth, the cloud’s economic model is not justified. The promised savings, particularly in terms of infrastructure simplification, never materialized.

Hansson highlights that the cloud offers advantages in two specific situations:

• For simple and low-traffic applications, where fully managed services genuinely save on complexity,
• And for highly irregular workloads with significant usage peaks.

Unfortunately, Basecamp did not fit into either of these categories, ending up paying an exorbitant price for an unfulfilled promise.

The article “We have left the cloud” then details the process and benefits of their transition out of the cloud. Surprisingly, the change was relatively straightforward, largely thanks to the prior containerization of their applications. In six months, Basecamp and HEY completely migrated away from the cloud, realizing significant savings and improving service performance through the acquisition of high-performance hardware. This transition, far from increasing complexity or management costs, allowed Basecamp to save at least $1.5 million per year while maintaining the same operational team size.

These experiences highlight a crucial point: owning hardware can be far more beneficial for companies with stable and predictable growth. Hansson openly criticizes cloud providers’ marketing strategies, which he believes exaggerate the benefits of their services while underestimating the associated costs and complexities.

Here’s a recent video, “The Cloud Fugitive,” that illustrates his perspective and was published on YouTube on February 10, 2024:

Reflections on the Cloud and Cloud Service Providers

Using the cloud for specific services seems reasonable, especially when resource pooling provides clear value. Email servers (Gmail, Exchange Online, Kmail) and end-user data storage solutions like Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, and Kdrive are perfect examples. These solutions offer ease of use and accessibility, which, while potentially replicable by traditional infrastructures, are made far more practical and cost-effective through cloud-based standardization and resource sharing.

One of the cloud’s major strengths is its agility in responding to demand variations. This technology allows near-instant adaptation during peak activity periods, a feature particularly valuable for handling fluctuations without over-provisioning infrastructures. While traditional systems can technically meet these requirements, the cost and logistical complexity of scaling them make cloud-based solutions more attractive. The cloud, with its pay-as-you-go model, provides a flexible and economically viable solution for navigating demand spikes without the heavy upfront investment required by traditional infrastructures.

That said, I believe the future of IT infrastructure lies in a hybrid approach. Migrating core services, such as email solutions, to platforms like Exchange Online, Gmail, or Kmail makes sense. These platforms simplify maintenance, ensure regular updates, and offer global accessibility, freeing companies from significant operational constraints. However, transitioning to the cloud should be approached with nuance. Simply adopting a “lift and shift” strategy without adaptation or consideration can be counterproductive, leading to unexpected costs and a loss of control over system management.

Dependence on cloud providers is another critical concern. Replacing a diverse operational team with a handful of cloud-specialized engineers may simplify operations in the short term. However, this shift towards increased cloud specialization often results in significant vendor lock-in. We then find ourselves in a “golden cage”: a situation where, despite the apparent convenience and efficiency, companies become tied to their cloud providers, facing high costs and increased complexity when exploring alternatives or attempting to revert to traditional solutions. While initially manageable, this dependency requires careful attention to avoid being trapped in a scenario that is difficult to reverse without significant disruptions or expenses.

Cloud providers often promote the simplicity of their offerings. However, an internal IT team with a clear vision and a well-defined strategy can achieve comparable levels of simplification and efficiency. Maintaining a skilled IT team capable of managing internal infrastructure while integrating cloud services that add genuine value is crucial.

Thus, balance is key: leveraging the cloud where it provides distinct advantages while retaining a solid internal infrastructure and preserving essential expertise. This requires a deep understanding of operational and strategic needs, along with the flexibility to adapt to a constantly evolving technological landscape. By choosing a hybrid approach, we can benefit from the best of both worlds, ensuring both innovation and autonomy. True simplification does not come from indiscriminate outsourcing but from strategic and intentional resource management.

Political Aspect

It seems absurd to entrust the management of all global servers to just a few companies like Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft. In doing so, we not only lose expertise but also independence. Maintaining digital sovereignty, both at a national level and within companies, is imperative by preserving expert profiles in these fields.

Ultimately, Basecamp and HEY’s journey teaches us a valuable lesson: the cloud is not a universal solution. As always, the key lies in thoughtful strategy, informed choices, and maintaining strong internal expertise. And remember, technological independence also means ensuring control over your digital future.

Update 21.02.2024: Here’s another highly interesting video about cloud computing:

Enjoy 😎 AlexIn Tech