←back to thread

Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

(blog.miloslavhomer.cz)
151 points ArcHound | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hilbert42 ◴[] No.44382615[source]
I still find it hard to believe that so many people and companies are prepared to use Microsoft's online/cloud services.

Not ony is this a single point of failure but it's one they've no control over whatsoever. Same goes for Google/Youtube etc. It's as risky as flying a passenger jet with only one engine.

What are they thinking, why are they prepared to risk everything?

It boggles my mind.

replies(4): >>44382646 #>>44382678 #>>44383159 #>>44384405 #
ArcHound ◴[] No.44384405[source]
It's cheap and it works well. Also integrates into everything related you'd need.
replies(1): >>44385192 #
esperent ◴[] No.44385192[source]
Also, if you're a small business without a dedicated tech team, what are your options that don't involve relying on a single big company?

Speaking for myself, running a bakery, I chose MS 365/Teams with regret but accepting that there's nothing else out there with the same value proposition except maybe Google workspace.

They have regional pricing so we get everything for the equivalent of $3.50 per user. Basically no other apps offer regional price - Slack alone would cost about $8 a user.

This includes chat, calls, messaging, 1tb of onedrive space per user, calendar, planner, emails, office, plus loads more.

Sure, it's janky but it basically works. The only thing I've found with a close value proposition (still slightly more expensive even if I limit to just a few gb of space per user) is self-hosted Nextcloud, which is about the same level of janky and requires a tech person or team to set up.

replies(3): >>44385399 #>>44386001 #>>44387379 #
herbst ◴[] No.44385399{3}[source]
I am not sure if a company that doesn't need a technical team even needs that technical overhead?

No reason to not just host email with any domain provider and manage the rest with a small NAS in the office.

Not only cheaper and taking away the update obligations of Microsoft. Which I am sure kills more productivity than managing a Synology server.

replies(2): >>44385574 #>>44385750 #
esperent ◴[] No.44385574{4}[source]
Storage is far from the highest priority. I do store quite a bit of files for marketing but those only need to be accessed by a few people.

Also, much as I wish otherwise, very little happens via email in this business. It's all chat apps now.

The important part is cross platform real time communications, calendar, and office. Some kind of kanban board is a nice bonus.

replies(1): >>44385774 #
1. herbst ◴[] No.44385774{5}[source]
Synology does all that, they even have some kind of office suite (haven't tried, I would just use libre and a central storage)

Synology is also setup and keep running for years usually.

It's just an example tho. I just don't see any need for a Microsoft cloud solution for a small company (or anyone really)

replies(1): >>44385918 #
2. razakel ◴[] No.44385918[source]
There's a demo on their website:

https://demo.synology.com/en-uk/dsm