* In-house development teams have more agility in standing up new services, since they can just use EC2/ECS/one of the other 1500 container runtimes AWS has, rather than having to wait for someone to provision new physical servers for them.
* An extensive suite of complementary products are available from cloud providers, it's not just about being able to start a VM, in many cases you don't even need to because you've got Lambda, and the various managed services.
* Less training/hiring overhead, since people who can use AWS are pretty much a commodity at this point, whereas people who can manage a mainframe are an increasingly rare breed.
* Redundancy becomes easier. As does data locality, let's say Singapore declare all services delivered in Singapore must be hosted there. That's a lot easier to handle if you don't have to go and build/acquire a data centre first.
* The aforementioned 400 million dollars per year.
> In-house development teams have more agility in standing up new services, since they can just use EC2/ECS/one of the other 1500 container runtimes AWS has, rather than having to wait for someone to provision new physical servers for them.
How many people run physical servers 'raw' anymore? I would hazard their current stack involves VMware, Hyper-V, Open Stack, or a combination of the three.
You can have an API system spin-up just as effectively in a private cloud as a public one.
I worked somewhere with a private cloud. It was permanently over-subscribed and the VMs were nearly unusable because of it.
Not saying it can't be done well but there's less incentive for a company whose main business isn't providing infrastructure to ensure they've provisioned enough resources to meet demand.
That's like running against cost limits in AWS. If no money is spent, you won't have the flexibility. But it's not the fault of private clouds, they can be as flexible as a public cloud.
That handles IaaS, now do all databases (relational, NoSQL, NewSQL, KV, etc.), message brokers, object storage and a hundred other services. OpenStack handles some of those, with varying degrees of success, but with VMware and Hyper-V you have to DIY from scratch with IMHO the wrong level of abstraction.
* In-house development teams have more agility in standing up new services, since they can just use EC2/ECS/one of the other 1500 container runtimes AWS has, rather than having to wait for someone to provision new physical servers for them.
* An extensive suite of complementary products are available from cloud providers, it's not just about being able to start a VM, in many cases you don't even need to because you've got Lambda, and the various managed services.
* Less training/hiring overhead, since people who can use AWS are pretty much a commodity at this point, whereas people who can manage a mainframe are an increasingly rare breed.
* Redundancy becomes easier. As does data locality, let's say Singapore declare all services delivered in Singapore must be hosted there. That's a lot easier to handle if you don't have to go and build/acquire a data centre first.
* The aforementioned 400 million dollars per year.