The main selling points were auto-scaling and not having to self-host. Or, on a higher level, outsourcing accountability, being able to point at someone else if something goes wrong, as exemplified by the present case.

▲

mrweasel 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

The whole thing has always been strange. The outsourcing of accountability for instance has always been a pain. Technically that is what you're doing, but if you work in IT operatings and GCP or AWS takes down your service, your boss still tell you to fix it.... but now you can't.

In terms of upfront costs, cloud is always cheaper, initially. There's sort of a weird sweet spot for cloud. If you're to small it makes no sense operationally, if you're to large, it just way to expensive.

	▲	NeutralWanted a minute ago \| parent [-]
		*If you're large and have a constant, stable usage pattern it makes no sense. Even for large companies, if you have somewhat stable usage most of the year, but periodically have usage spikes, cloud providers still remain super beneficial. That's the whole selling point of cloud. Spins up the resources when you need them. Spin them down when you don't. Cloud thrives off companies spinning up resources and never spinning them down, even when they don't need them anymore.