> Backups are notorious for going untested because too often nobody cares if they work until you discover the hard way that they don't. That's the "setting it up wrong" problem and cloud doesn't really change that.

At risk of repeating myself:

1/ I didn't make the backup comparison

2/ I've already said I didn't agree with GP using that specific example

3/ I didn't make the backup comparison

So can we drop the discussion about backups please.

> The point you're making is that when something fails you don't have to spend time fixing it because that's somebody else's job now. Which is fine, but then you're paying a premium for that and the question becomes whether such hardware failures are common enough that you come out ahead that way or not.

You can argue this all you like however that doesn't change the fact that I'm only reporting what I've observed some decision makers base their decisions on. You may not agree with their opinion but arguing with me isn't going to change that.

> You pay even more of a premium for third party hosting, and server hardware is a general purpose commodity. If your project ends then it can be used for the next one. And even something bought on credit can be resold and the money used to pay off most/all of the debt, especially now that Moore's Law is in decline and hardware doesn't depreciate as fast as it used to.

As I've already said several times, it depends on how you utilise the cloud. Lift and shift projects where you replicate an on-prem solution in the cloud often works out more expensive. However using SaaS solutions can work out cheaper - if you know what you're doing. It's really not a clear cut as you think.

> Moreover, if you know ahead of time that your project has a high short-term failure probability then it can make sense to not want a longer-term commitment, but not everything is so uncertain. Many projects are known to have a >95% probability of still existing in five years.

If it were as easy as that then significantly fewer startups would fail. I get you don't like cloud services but your exaggerations are now bordering on the ridiculous.

> That's true. But what if for some reason you prefer "effectively paying for your hardware on a subscription basis rather than paying tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds / dollars up front"? :)

If that's what you want to do then do it. If you want to store all of your hardware inside a rocket and shoot it into space then you're free to do that too. It doesn't mean any of them are sensible suggestions though. But if that's what you prefer to do then go for it ;)

> My point is that people overuse it. You see companies with entirely static and predictable future needs moving their entire operations into the cloud anyway.

> And I suspect people are going to regret the long-term experience of SaaS. Once you have a decade of your business data on someone else's proprietary service with no export function, what does your negotiating position look like?

Of course people overuse it. That's how IT industry works. Someone comes up with a good idea and then everyone rushes to clone it regardless of whether it makes sense or not. As much as we'd like to consider ourselves intelligent engineers our industry is still full of hypes and fads. Often it's cyclic too - with new generations of engineers re-discovering old technology and rebranding it. I've seen it happen time and time again in my many years in IT.