Trying to support cloud with argument of better tech is one thing. However tech doesn't really counter the arguments John makes. Echoing them... "Cloud" is every bit as much suspect in those various regards. Foisted upon ignorant IT management who bathe themselves in the cool-aid and false prospect of liability offloading. Pre positioned by IT job and education system requireing "certifications" funneling football jocks into IT instead of natural talent for sysadmin. Supported by rent seeking and constant churn of failed contracts into new contracts... locked up, tied down, paid to change and held hostage until freed. Insulated by mandatory contractual disclaimers to privacy, hacking and negligience. Perpetualized by the continual offering of dependency teat for suckage. Huge disjoint between interests. Your key to your door does not fit theirs. Extrafunded by datamining and exploited by all manner of "partners" on the backside. It's also interesting to see insurers popping up around IT risk. Yes, insurance can add needed diligence and rigor. But it also indicates an industry finally throwing its hands up and saying "Ok, we've hit the limit of reasonably attainable security". Good sysadmins/coders are worth their weight in gold. And even if only as advisors, you want them working directly for you, not on the other side of some cloud contract. Yes, the first "cloud" models were in fact an entire corporate HQ full of thin client xterms [today: browsers] connected to the datacenter down the hall. Analysts and admins might say that how [new] tech and resources are utilized is the factor, not where it's housed. Cloud is utilising and making good offers in particular use cases, because it's free to speculate on its own VC dime. But there are tangible caveats and risks there that don't always equate to a dire need to scrap what you already have down the hall. Look before you leap.