This one landed in my inbox today:
Except for the part where there is not one single problem articulated that a co-lo solves where a cloud service provider flops, this is a
great, mediocre, pure clickbait article. It can’t even agree with itself. Here’s an example…
The company owns the server and the software — there is no haggling if and when the equipment or software is to be updated or replaced.
Then immediately following, under “disadvantages”:
Depending on the company’s location (urban vs. rural, for example) colocation providers may be quite far away. If so, that would increase the time and effort to upgrade and to get a system back online.
So…which is it? Does the co-lo provider own the gear and, therefore, the maintenance of said gear or do you just rent a rack with your own gear? Both of these are valid models but they are not the same thing and neither of these (nor the rest of the article) demonstrate some advantage over renting a virtual machine, application instance or entire virtual infrastructure from some cloud service provider.
I’m starting to feel like the Jon Stewart of IT news, minus the wit, broad knowledge base and audience. So, nothing like Jon Stewart except for our shared revulsion at terrible reportage.