HPE: Since y'all love cloud subs so much, we'll throw all our boxes into GreenLake by 2022

HPE – the company that failed to cut it in the public cloud and offloaded its Enterprise Services biz a few years back – wants to make its whole portfolio available to buy as-a-service by 2022. The grand old lady of tech today revealed that enterprises will be able to slurp its hardware via a mix of subscription, pay-per-use, …

[FozzyBear]

“Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

"We recognise that technology as a service is the best way to exploit our customers. Whilst customers believe they can pay as they use, Reality is, once they are locked in we can continue to increase the service fees, ensuring our yearly bonuses. Sure the customer will bitch about it, but what are they going to do, Move to someone else, wait until they review our "divorce" fees BWHAHAHA

FTFY Antonio. Sure it doesn't have the usual Utopian view of rainbows and unicorns with everyone skipping into the sunset holding hands. But you have to admit it is closer to reality

[jliv]

Re: “Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

This is argument might have held water 5 years ago, but not today. The technology advantages of public cloud are myriad, the costs are significantly lower than purchasing on-Prem HW, and the ability to scale-up and down, almost infinitely, simply isn’t available on-Prem. As for lock-in, thIs just isn’t the case. Yes, there are data transfer fees to move out of the cloud, but once you’ve gone cloud you’ll never go back, for all of the reasons stated above. On-Prem HW vendors like HPE are dying a death of a thousand cuts. It’s the end of an era.

[Ahosewithnoname]

Re: “Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

An objective post about cloud in the comments section. Who'd have thought it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: “Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

The technology advantages of public cloud are myriad, the costs are significantly lower than purchasing on-Prem HW, and the ability to scale-up and down, almost infinitely, simply isn’t available on-Prem.

A client of mine has about 1000 Exchange users on-prem. The system (Exchange 2010) needs replacing. The options are either O365 or buying new servers and licenses.

In a 5-year-period the O365 costs balloon to over 1M euros whereas the on-prem Exchange costs less than 200k - the price includes a server cluster with storage and software, HW warranty and backups.

If you're contemplating running your own Azure based Exchange solution with the same configuration - helluva lot more expensive as well.

Of course there are very good cases where the cloud is fine, but this on wasn't.

[david 64]

Re: “Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

Snap.

Even factor in Office suite and it gets no better. Office 2016 vol + Exchange on prem (+ multi-site DAG, hardware, backup) is still less than 1000 E3 licenses, even by year 3 let alone year 5.

Sure you don't get the cloud services of O365. But like many mid-sized orgs down here in the real world, our lot can't see past "all we need is word, outlook and excel".

Not a reflection on the tech or the model necessarily - more the pricing :)

Small business (<300 seats) things look a bit better.

[richardcox13]

Re: “Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

> In a 5-year-period the O365 costs balloon to over 1M euros whereas the on-prem Exchange costs less than 200k - the price includes a server cluster with storage and software, HW warranty and backups.

But based on those figures, not the client software.

Yes, cloud isn't cheaper over an extended timeline. But then once you're servers are purchased you've paid the full capex – lots of upfront costs – and then the business environment changes and you need more (so more cost) or less infrastructure. In the latter case with the cloud you can scale down.

Flexibility, in a changing world, has value as well. Maybe your employer is sufficiently static that it doesn't need flexibility.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@FozzyBear Re: “Everyone recognises that customers want technology delivered as a service,

While you're spinning this as the 'go to cloud' as the vendor's idea, its not.

Blame the pointy haired CIOs and bean counters who don't understand the true costs. After years, we are starting to see articles talking about the outrageous costs the 'unicorns' are paying AWS, along with the security issues and everything else.

Bean counters are supposed to evalue the costs but don't do anything longer than a 3yr TCO (if even that long) because they don't want to show the investion. (Assets are depreciated over an accelerated 3yr period)

The CIOs are buying in to the need for a 'go to cloud' strategy, and the 'scalability' capability where they don't have to plan or manage the assets.

Also you have CAPEX vs OPEX.

The sad truth is that many understand this, but don't care. For the most part, they are in and out of the company long before the SHTF price-tag comes around... and then the next CIO blames his predecessor and says its the cost of doing business.

[IGotOut]

Technology as a service?

Fancy way of putting "you're renting it"

FFS.

[Neil Alexander]

Re: Technology as a service?

"The cloud", "someone else's computer", etc.

[Bangem]

One size does not fit all.

FAO: hardware manufacturers

What if your customers are public sector and have no operational budget and instead get purely cap ex spend?

Lots of business models don't like operational cost, and so this will be completely ignored by them.

thank you