←back to thread

Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

(blog.miloslavhomer.cz)
151 points ArcHound | 2 comments | 25 Jun 25 20:08 UTC | HN request time: 1.91s | source
Show context
graemep ◴[26 Jun 25 10:29 UTC] No.44385980[source]▶
I am not convinced by the argument about cost, particularly "You’d still have to be more efficient than Microsoft though - that’s a challenge"

1. Most, even quite big organisations, do not have the complexities of operating at the scale of MS services.

2. I have no idea how efficient MS are. maybe they are highly efficient, but I know enough big businesses are inefficient that it is not a given.

replies(1): >>44386186 #
ArcHound ◴[26 Jun 25 11:08 UTC] No.44386186[source]▶
Fair point.

If you take it directly on a Walmart scale, then I'll argue that you can't outcompete Microsoft. Note that you need to bring your own ID, Auth, Office, desktop system, etc.

If you have a smaller scale, then you've invested less resources into MS therefore you have a lesser budget to work with.

replies(1): >>44386870 #
1. graemep ◴[26 Jun 25 12:42 UTC] No.44386870[source]▶
I wonder. Even Walmart is still not operating at the scale the hyperscalers do, and their systems will be far less varied, far more homogenous and under their own control. They are big enough for a lot of economies of scale to kick in.

> Note that you need to bring your own ID, Auth, Office, desktop system, etc.

Do Microsoft entirely manage all these systems for them? Otherwise they just swap managing one system for another. A quick search seems to show Walmart do hire sysadmins so the current cost on top of what they pay MS is not zero.

replies(1): >>44387090 #
2. ArcHound ◴[26 Jun 25 13:10 UTC] No.44387090[source]▶
The article I've linked about Walmart talked about Azure costs. So I'd say that yes, MS mostly manages the systems for them.

Also, they need some of those hyperscale goodies as they need to work with load spikes e.g. on a Black Friday.