The Cloud Illusion: How Are Companies Reevaluating Cloud Infrastructure?

From the beginning, I was always reticent about the idea of cloud computing. Throw all your independence and security into the hands of third parties? You basically lose control of what’s yours. This concern is not unfounded, especially when we look at the banking sector, which has traditionally been cautious in its adoption of cloud technology. The vast majority of banks never fully adopted the cloud. And those that did, chose to create their own cloud solutions, thus maintaining greater autonomy and control over their critical data.

In addition to security and control issues, there are other technical obstacles associated with the cloud, such as “network glitches”, which can be particularly problematic for tools that require instant communication, such as telephony. These issues reinforce the need for a robust and reliable infrastructure, which is not always guaranteed by traditional cloud solutions.

However, the movement toward the cloud is often driven by the grand illusion of eternal profit growth. There is constant pressure to cut costs and maximize profits, and the cloud has been sold as a silver bullet for this. But how good is this? Is sacrificing control, security and, in some cases, performance in the name of cost reduction a sustainable long-term strategy?

These are important questions that every company needs to consider carefully. Data repatriation signals a moment of reflection in the corporate world, a recognition that excessive dependence on the cloud may not be the best path for everyone. Organizations are beginning to realize that, in some cases, maintaining or rebuilding their own infrastructure can offer significant advantages, not only in terms of costs, but also in preserving autonomy, security and operational effectiveness.

Contrary to expected savings, 43% of companies (according to InfoWorld) discovered that migrating to the cloud was more expensive than expected. The idea that the cloud could be a cheaper alternative has faded in the face of real costs, pushing many organizations to reconsider their on-premises infrastructure as a more financially viable option.

In addition to the financial aspect, concerns about security and failure to meet expectations led a third of companies to repatriate their infrastructure. The cloud, despite its promises of robustness and security, has not always been able to meet the specific demands of each organization, raising critical questions about data protection and performance.

Migrating to the cloud requires adapting existing operations and applications. Without proper optimization for the cloud environment, companies found themselves facing increased expenses and a reduction in operational efficiency. The lack of use of modern technologies such as containers and clustering made the transition not only challenging but also counterproductive.

The journey back to on-premises infrastructure is not without its challenges. Companies need to closely monitor security, rely on experts to manage services and data, and perform a thorough analysis of required hardware resources. This return requires a significant investment both in economic terms and in human resources.

In conclusion, the trend of data repatriation is a timely reminder that cloud technology, while offering many advantages, is not a perfect or universal solution. The cloud versus on-premises infrastructure debate is not just a question of cost or convenience, but also one of control, security, and long-term viability. As more companies reevaluate their IT infrastructure strategies, it is becoming clear that the decision to adopt the cloud must be made with a thorough understanding of the trade-offs involved. Ultimately, finding a balance between innovation, efficiency and data sovereignty remains a central challenge for organizations around the world.

Ighor Toth