Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#141

Post by aianus »

perl4ever wrote: post #111
lend000 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many masks would be floating around by now if there were no laws or public shaming for raising prices in an emergency.

Something something mythical man-month.

I have an entire Costco package of toilet paper that will last me months while some poor bastard near me is probably wiping his ass with his hand (or worse, flushing paper towel and causing thousands of dollars of damage) because there is no effective way for me to resell my excess in a way that is legal and won’t result in crazy social media backlash against me.

I similarly have months of supply of hand sanitizer (one big bottle, not hoarding).

The drawbacks of these laws don’t feel hypothetical to me right now.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#142

Post by pyuser583 »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Wow. 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…

I wonder what the net neutrality people think?

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#143

Post by xapata »

ineedasername wrote: post #116
AmericanChopper wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability to pay is only one aspect of demand. There’s also how much you actually want it, and the amount of opportunity cost you’re willing to pay. Keeping prices artificially low keeps demand artificially high, while supply doesn’t increase, or cannot increase if it’s inelastic.

It doesn't matter if demand is artifial if there's a filter in place to allocate resources on a need-basis. Not matter the demand from non-need customers, they won't get it, or get less of it. The point in a crisis isn't to let markets find a natural equilibrium, which could mean it stabilizes into a state that isn't optimal to public health. On a crisis, the point is to prioritize those usages that will deal with an…

> prioritize those usages that will deal with and help lessen the crisis

Who is responsible for that decision? Do they become a bottleneck? Might they make mistakes? Are they susceptible to corruption? If so, it may be more wise to distribute that decision-making... via the market system.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#144

Post by jefftk »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #115
loeg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately these "delusional autocrats" run the government of, for example, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. and would absolutely punish such a baker.

I highly recommend that you read through the legislation. The legislation explicitly allows prices to increase due to actual increases in costs. The only thing that's banned is increases in price due to increased profit margins.

Price gouging rules also keep people from speculatively ramping up production at the stage where it might be needed but you're not sure yet: https://www.jefftk.com/p/price-gouging-and-speculative-costs

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#145

Post by rsynnott »

enlyth wrote: post #93
spencerwgreene wrote: post #68

The Microsoft blog post that the article is using as a source: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/update-2-on-microsoft... .

After reading this, it seems the headline is a bit misleading. The Microsoft blog post states: "We have seen a 775 percent increase of our cloud services in regions that have enforced social distancing or shelter in place orders." So it's not an overall increase, just in certain regions?

Those ‘certain regions’ would be most of the world, though, presumably.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#146

Post by [deleted] »

jbverschoor wrote: post #45
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that? Have you seen a discrepancy between your projections of future cash flows and therefore your valuation, as compared to the value the market is at right now?

They’re mainly a software / services company. There’s no reason their revenue will drop, the contrary.. Yet the stock price has the exact same changes as the rest of the entire market. Their cloud demand is up x7.. it’s not priced in. Amazon same thing, although less so imho Their current p/e is 26. Remove cash and it’s nearing 20.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#147

Post by thanksforfish »

ineedasername wrote: post #137

How much excess capacity would a cloud provider typically have (as in %) to accommodate normal peak loads and still have a comfortable margin? Or maybe that's not something providers reveal, so let me as the sys-admins of this thread: For on-premise resources, what is your % margin of excess capacity reserved?

For specific ec2 instance types the excess capacity is sometimes zero, which customers sometimes see. I've needed to swap instant types to get a deploy unstuck or to scale up in the past when capacity didn't exist.

Because of that I always recommend that a project reserve instances to ensure capacity exists when you need it. It's also cheaper, but that risk is important to mitigate.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#148

Post by selimthegrim »

loeg wrote: post #106
cosmodisk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are making bread and suddenly price of flour increases by 600%,so you have to increase your prices. Unless you are based in a country run by some delusional autocrat, you'd be fine. If, however,the supply chain is fine, i.e. your toilet paper supplier, however you end up selling it for 500% price because people can't seen to have enough of it- the the laws would apply.

Unfortunately these "delusional autocrats" run the government of, for example, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. and would absolutely punish such a baker.

Do you think Louisiana has Republican governor?

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#150

Post by robjan »

RangerScience wrote: post #75
mardifoufs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

That was Hong Kong, not Japan
Post reply on HN