Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still doesnt define demand. Is that new sales or what?
Utilization.
Their utilization has gone up 700%? Bullshit.
Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
71–80 of 275 posts
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the thing I'm mostly pissed of is the status page. VM's are failing left, right and center and everything is nice and green on the status page. Once you open a ticket, they send you an incident-in-progress report. Status pages parroting lies in service of marketing should incur more liability for companies than they do. How does a society discourage vendors from doing things like this?
It should eventually fall under consumer protection laws. Failing to report incidents on a status page is like failing to mention trans fat on a package label.
It’s more like actively claiming “contains zero trans fats!” On the packaging when in fact the product is full of them.
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#73Why would Microsoft be disproportionately affected by this? Are we expecting similar decrees from AWS and GCP? Or was Microsoft operating with less runway before this began?
My theory is that Amazon and Google are more prepared to handle surges because they run some of the largest web properties.
This like every day is Black Friday for Amazon. It's rough, but not something they have never dealt with before.
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Office (/Microsoft) 365 is a pretty good value for what it is. It isn’t free, but $20 per user per month for Windows + Office + Exchange + OneDrive + Azure AD and support is pretty good. Microsoft saying “Ahh! Crisis! Here’s the Windows Server codebase!” wouldn’t help, since you’d have to still find a host and time to make sure your code works on this upstream variant without all of the licensed DLLs that makes Windo…
Google offers the same for less than $12 a month with unlimited storage for large companies and $12 a month for everyone else. Plus you get an operating system that is based off Linux and open source. Windows is a giant PITA when it comes to deploying and setting up mobile device management. Matrix offers free decentralized video/voice communication and there are lots of self-hosted alternatives that often provide be…
You've just named and listed the services. Odd why people would choose Office365 instead of hosting their own nextcloud distribution cluster in their own colocation space.
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 months? Try 2 years. It's a year minimum before we get a handle on this (no, not the vaccine, just the virus itself).
That's ludicrous. If you were right we wouldn't have a stock market by then. We wouldn't even have an economy after 1 year of lock downs, even if they were on and off. There's a point where we just won't be able to isolate and if the virus stays dangerous we will be forced to just take the risk.
"I do not think that this argument is sufficiently substantial to require refutation. Consolation would be more appropriate."
https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf
Or, we change the kind of economy that we have. We're seeing right now how what parts are actually "essential"; arguably, the rest is only necessary for growth. If growth stops being the goal, the the economy as it was doesn't have to continue.
We're already seeing some rumblings of a stark dichotomy, what with some people advocating for a return to work and acceptance of the risk, contrasting with the backlash that their dollar is not more important than someone's life.
In a Japanese subway, someone wrote: “We can't return to normal, because the normal that we had was precisely the problem.”
It doesn't entirely matter if they're right or wrong objectively; if enough people subscribe to this view, it becomes what we live through.
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#76I read and executed but did not write that percentage
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states. https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... For example, Georgia: > Selling items or services determined by the Governor during a declared state of emergency to be necessary for public safety at a higher cost than they were immediately prior to the declaration. Kansas: > For any supplier of a "necessary proper…
I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…
Why do you think governments would only sue on behalf of themselves? The point of these laws is to allow attorneys general to sue on behalf of their constituents. Random example: https://www.standardspeaker.com/coronavirus/state-attorney-g...
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#78Wow. First of all, I'm curious to what proportions this is driven primarily by remote office work (O365), videoconferencing streaming, recreational video streaming (does Disney+ run on Azure?), or what. But second... I'm fascinated by the concept of prioritization rules in place rather than simply raising prices. I wonder if it "looks bad" to raise prices, or if the vast majority of customers already have locked-in p…
So what do you suggest here ? Prioritize a wealthy workspace sharing startup over a hospital?
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…
Governments will also exert this force on behalf of their citizens, is the happier read. In a disaster, everything becomes finite, but profiteering is still deeply disruptive to the shared societal fabric.
Yep - if there's N capacity to provide a necessary necessary good/service, but M > N need, raising the price doesn't seem like a great solution to manage it in a crisis situation. To some extent non necessary uses would decrease, but you also end up with more wealthy people who want it more getting it, and more generally there won't be any distinction between want and need.
Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states. https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... For example, Georgia: > Selling items or services determined by the Governor during a declared state of emergency to be necessary for public safety at a higher cost than they were immediately prior to the declaration. Kansas: > For any supplier of a "necessary proper…
They aren't raising prices; they're limiting availability. All three quoted laws solely cover prices.
Yes; the laws are being quoted to explain why they are limiting availability instead of raising prices.