Cloud Costs: A Conversation with Travis Rehl

Cloud Costs: A Conversation with Travis Rehl

This conversation covers:


  • Why many businesses are shifting away from analyzing total cloud spend (CapEX vs. OpEX) and are now forecasting spend based around usage patterns.
  • The difference between cloud-native, cloud computing, and operating in the cloud.
  • The delta that often exists between engineering teams and business stakeholders regarding costs. Travis also offers tips for aligning both parties earlier in the project lifecycle.
  • Common misconceptions that exist around cost management, for both engineers and business stakeholders. For example, Travis talks about how engineers often assume that business teams manage purely to dollars and cents, when they are often very open to extending budgets when it’s necessary.
  • Tips for predicting cloud spend, and why teams usually fall short in their projections.
  • Why conducting cloud cost management too early in a project can be detrimental.
  • Comparing the cost of the cloud to a private data center.
  • The growing reliance on multi-cloud among large enterprises. Travis also explains why it’s important to have the right processes in place, to identify cross-cloud saving opportunities.
  • How IT has transitioned from a business enabler to a business driver in recent years, and is now arguably the most important component for the average company.


Links:

Transcript


Announcer: Welcome to The Business of cloud-native podcast, where we explore how end users talk and think about the transition to Kubernetes and cloud-native architectures.



Emily: Welcome to the Business of cloud-native. I'm your host, Emily Omier, and I'm here today with Travis Rehl, who is the director of product at CloudCheckr. Travis, I just wanted to start out, first of all, by saying thank you for joining me on the show. And second of all, if you could just start off by introducing yourself. What you do, and by that I mean, what does an actual day look like? And some of your background?



Travis: Yeah. Well, thanks for having me. So yeah, I'm Travis Rehl, director of product here at CloudCheckr. What that really means is, I have the fun job of figuring out what should the business do next in relation to our product offering here at the business. That means roadmap, looking at the market, what are customers doing differently now, or planning to do differently over the next year, two years or so, on cloud? What their cost strategies are, what their invoicing and chargeback strategies are, all that type of fun stuff, and how we can help accommodate those particular strategies using our product offering.



Sort of, day to day, though, I would say that a bunch of my time during the day is spent talking to customers, figuring out where they are in their cloud journey, if you will, what programs or projects they may have in flight that are interesting, or complicated, or they need help on. Especially making any sort of analysis help in particular, and then lastly, taking all that information and packaging it up neatly, so that the business can make a decision to add functionality to our product in some way that can assist them move forward.



Emily: The first question I wanted to ask is actually if you could talk just a little bit about the distinction between cloud-native, and cloud computing, and operating in the cloud. What do all of those things actually mean, and where's the delta between them?



Travis: Sure. Yeah so, it's actually kind of interesting, and you'll hear it a little bit differently from different people. In my background, in particular—I used to run an engineering department for a managed service provider. And so we used to do a lot of project planning of companies as to what's their strategy for their software deployment of some kind on cloud. And typically the two you see for, say, cloud-native versus operating in the cloud, operating on the cloud is very atypical.



You'd associate that to something like lift and shift—probably hear about a lot—the concept of taking your on-prem workload and simply cloning it, or taking it in some way and copying in some way, on to the cloud-native vendor in particular. So, literally just standing up servers of clones of hard drives and so forth, and emulating what you had on-prem, but on the cloud. That's a great technique for moving quickly to cloud. That's not a great technique if you want to be cloud-native. So, that's really the big segue for cloud-native, in particular, is you want to build a software solution that takes advantage of cloud-only technology, meaning serverless compute resources, meaning auto-scaling different types of services themselves, stuff you probably didn't have when you're on-prem originally, that you now have, you can take advantage of on the cloud. That's almost like a redesign, or reimplementation around those models that cloud itself provides to you. That, to me, is the big difference. And I see oftentimes that gap-wise, many companies who are starting on-prem, they will do the migration to cloud first, the lift and shift model, and then they will decide, “Hey, I want to redesign pieces of it to make it more cloud-native.” And then you'll see startups who don't have on-prem at all, they will just go into cloud-native from the get-go.



Emily: Of course, CloudCheckr specializes in helping with costs among some other things, but how do costs fit into this journey, and what sort of cost-related concerns do companies have as they're on this cloud journey?



Travis: Yeah, so there's a few. I would actually say that years ago—just to clarify, the discussion has changed over the last few years—but years ago, it started with CapEx versus OpEx costs, specifically for purchasing of your IT services. On-prem, you'd probably purchase up-front a bulk number of VMs or servers or otherwise, for a number of years, and so be a CapEx cost. When you moved over to cloud and more of this, usage-based, model kind of threw a lot of people for a loop when it came to more OpEx usage space models. AWS, Azure, GCP have helped in that regard with things like reserved instances for companies who are more CapEx oriented as well, but in terms of the initial years ago, a big hurdle was communicating that difference and how the business may pay for these services. And a lot of people were very interested in moving to OpEx back then, in particular.



When it came to how do you take into account all these cost-related changes the business may go through, one of the big ones that I see most recently is around the transference and storage of data. In the past, it would have been about how much money total am I going to spend on the cloud itself. Now, it's about what am I forecasting to spend based off of those usage patterns. It's a bit easier to forecast those things when you have servers that run for a period of time, but when you have usage patterns for data ingestion, for data transfer, for servers spinning up and spinning down and scaling out horizontally, ...

Jaksot(267)

Getting Your Pricing Model Right-ish with Alex Olivier

Getting Your Pricing Model Right-ish with Alex Olivier

In the second episode that I recorded on-site at KubeCon EU in Paris, I spoke with Alex Olivier, CPO and co-founder of Cerbos. This was not a general discussion: It was focused on the process that Cerbos went through to figure out pricing. Here’s what we talked about:The first step of figuring out your pricing is not the number, but rather what you’re charging for. Is it API calls, or amount of data you’re processing, or monthly active users, or monthly active principles… that last one is what Cerbos is charging forWhy it’s important to have a pricing system that allows potential users to be able to roughly estimate for themselves how much using your software is going to cost themYou also want to avoid pricing models that encourage people to look for ways to hack around to find ways to lower their monthly costsWhy your pricing model should be about the value you’re providing, not about how much it costs you to run your systemDiscovering what your price anchors are / what your customers are comparing you toCheck out the full episode for more details! And join us at Open Source Founders Summit for more discussions about the specifics of pricing for open source companies.

10 Huhti 202425min

Nailing Customer Acquisition with Patrick Backman of MariaDB and OpenOcean

Nailing Customer Acquisition with Patrick Backman of MariaDB and OpenOcean

This week, I had a dilemma: should I prioritize the episode where I spoke with one of the MariaDB co-founders, in which we discuss setting up a foundation as a way to ensure that the project continues to be open source in the future, no matter what (relevant given the Redis announcement); or should I prioritize the conversation with one of the founders of Sonatype, one of the oldest companies in the software supply chain security space, in which we talk about the xz debacle. I went with Patrick Backman, general partner at OpenOcean and co-founder of MariaDB, because it’s a little more in my lane. (The conversation with Brian Fox will have to wait for next week!). One of the main things we discussed was the relationship between the MariaDB foundation and the MariaDB company. Including: Why they decided to put MariaDB open source in a foundation, and why they created a separate foundation instead of putting it in an existing foundation The relationship between MariaDB foundation and company today, including the financial relationshipMariaDB was founded by the founders (and some key employees) at MySQL; we also discussed the lessons learned at MySQL that the team then applied at MariaDB. And we talked about customer acquisition, one of the things that Patrick thinks the team had learned at MySQL and therefore had pretty well figured it out at MariaDB. Patrick’s co-founder Monty Widenius is one of the speakers at Open Source Founders Summit — if you want to go into more details on with the lessons from MySQL and MariaDB, as well as lessons from being an investor at OpenOcean, join us in Paris May 27th and 28th at Open source Founders Summit.

3 Huhti 202436min

Ensuring a Project's Long-Term Survival with William Morgan

Ensuring a Project's Long-Term Survival with William Morgan

This week on The Business of Open Source, I have an episode recorded on site at KubeCon EU in Paris with William Morgan, CEO of Buoyant. We had a fabulous conversation, which touched on some touchy subjects, including Buoyant’s slightly changing relationship with Linkerd. But we talked about:Being an open source mercenary, but also being dedicated to making Linkerd a ‘proper’ open source projectFeeling like open source was table stakes for a company in the space Buoyant plays in. This is an under-appreciated reason for being an open source company — you feel like it’s just expected in the market you play in, so you do. Waiting too long (or is it too long?) to commercializeStarting out by selling support, but the problem with that because Linkerd worked well and people kept saying that they didn’t need support because they never had problemsCompeting against Istio, which was backed by the Google engine and how that made Linkerd / Buoyant an underdog (or cockroach). For those of you who haven’t been following Linkerd / Buoyant… Buoyant recently announced that they would be doing edge releases for Linkerd, but not stable releases. We talked about why they made this change and how the ecosystem responded. Check out the full episode!

27 Maalis 202435min

From Project to Profit with Heather Meeker

From Project to Profit with Heather Meeker

This week on The Business of Open Source I talked to Heather Meeker, General Partner of OSS Capital and author of From Project to Profit, How to Build a Business around your Open Source Project. We talked about some things that I entirely agree with, and then there were some points I challenged Heather on — all in all, it was fabulous conversation. Here’s what we covered:Why you should think of your project and product as two different products so you avoid thinking of your open source project as a loss leader and get your incentives rightThe differences between supplementary and complementary products, and how the relationship between project and product is often complementary, even in situations where that relationship is non-obviousWe disagreed about pricing — should COSS businesses have cheaper products than closed-source companies? Why cares about your being open source? Are open source companies more capital efficient? Heather says so, but I’m not convinced. Heather also talked about how they select companies to invest inDo open source companies by definition do a better job at paying attention to user / customer demand? Check out the episode, and check out more about Heather Meeker here: Personal websiteOSS CapitalLinkedIn

20 Maalis 202437min

Delivering Value Quickly in the Observability Space with Pranay Prateek

Delivering Value Quickly in the Observability Space with Pranay Prateek

This week on The Business of Open Source I spoke with Pranay Prateek, co-founder of SigNoz. Pranay talked about why open source is important to SigNoz's business, why it's super important to deliver value quickly, even for an observability product, and why founders shouldn't think of open source just as a distribution model. We also covered: How SigNoz is differentiated in the crowded observability marketWhy Pranay thinks being open source makes it much easier for developers to play around with the project and get to know it; so for them it made intuitive sense that the company that they’d build an open source company Why Pranay also thinks open source enables much deeper integrations, which is critically important for an observability company like SigNozHow one of their first lessons / mistakes was releasing an open source project that didn’t work well on an individual developer’s laptop, because it used too much resourcesThe GTM market, and the challenge delivering value within 30 minutes of trying out the project/product for an observability tool that provides maximum value during an incident — but no one is going to be trying out a new tool during an incident situation Why their first commercial product was a cloud offeringAnd much more! And if you’re interested in more discussions of open source businesses, make sure to join us at Open Source Founders Summit this May.

13 Maalis 202439min

OSFS Special Episode: Being a Strategic Acquisition Target as an OSS Company with Thomas Di Giacomo

OSFS Special Episode: Being a Strategic Acquisition Target as an OSS Company with Thomas Di Giacomo

In this special episode to promote Open Source Founders Summit, I went deep with Thomas di Giacomo about how open source companies can position themselves as attractive acquisition targets for strategic buyers. If you are the founder of an open source company and you have the idea of being acquired even in the back of your mind, this is a must-listen episode. Whether or not you plan to join us May 27th and 28th in Paris, though of course we hope you do join us. By the way, at OSFS Thomas is going to lead a workshop on the topic of being an acquisition target for open source companies. It will be interactive, which means you can ASK QUESTIONS. In this podcast episode, he talked about: Exits 101. You probably know that strategic buyers usually pay more for companies than other types of acquirers, but we talked about different exit strategies and what they entailWhy strategic buyers acquire businesses (in general) but also why you, as the business seller, need to understand every specific potential acquirer’s story and goals so you can see how your company fits into their strategic planStrategic acquisitions are about 1+1=3… so you have to know what your buyer’s “3” isWhy it’s important to be self-aware and know your own goals before you sign any acquisition paperworkAnd tons more… If you want the chance to ask Thomas about strategic acquisitions for OSS companies — as well as to talk about sales strategies, lead generation and more — join us at OSFS 24 in Paris this May 27th and 28th. —> Get your invite here. PS the audio was a little quiet, but so if you’re having trouble hearing turn up the volume, it’s worth it.

12 Maalis 202432min

Buyer-Based Open Core with Zach Wasserman

Buyer-Based Open Core with Zach Wasserman

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Zach Wasserman, co-founder and CTO of Fleet. This was a fabulous episode for many reasons, but then again I never do crappy episodes, right? The first thing I wanted to call your attention to is that Zach talked about how he’s building an open core business because building an open source business is what he wants to do. When his previous company turned away from open source, Zach left to do consulting around OSquery and Fleet (the project). I always like to talk about how companies / founders need a solid reason for building an open source company… and “this is the kind of company I want to build” is a very good reason. (“Everyone else is doing it” on the other hand, is not a good reason). Everyone puts constraints around the type of company the want to build, and as long as you are intentionally about the decisions, there is nothing wrong about this, business-wise.Second, we talked about the tension that exists between making a great project and still leaving room for a commercial product that people will pay for, and Zach talked through how Fleet uses a buyer-based open core strategy to decide which functionality to put in the enterprise version or in the open core. We also talked about:Leaving his first company, Kolide, when the founders had divergent visions about where the company should goHow his investor arranged a ‘co-founder marriage’ for Zach and his co-founder Mike McNeilHow the transparency aspect of open source can be extremely important, especially for anything in the security spaceLastly, Fleet happens to be a former client of mine. You can check out what Mike, Zach’s co-founder, said about working with me here. And if you’re interested in more conversations like this… but in person!!! you should come to Open Source Founders Summit May 27th and 28th in Paris.

6 Maalis 202437min

The Evolving Relationship between Apache Cassandra and DataStax

The Evolving Relationship between Apache Cassandra and DataStax

Slightly different The Business of Open Source episode today! I spoke with Patrick McFadin and Mick Semb Wever about the relationship between Apache Cassandra and DataStax — how it was at the beginning and how the relationship has evolved over the years. We talked about:— How there was a dynamic around Cassandra where many of the many of the contributors ended up being sucked into the DataStax orbit, simply because it allowed those contributors to work on on Cassandra full-time— How there can be tensions between different stakeholders simply because everyone involved ultimately has their own interests at heart, and those interests are not always aligned. — How it is actually hard to really have open discussions about new features, and how often there can be a new feature dropped in a project that clearly had been developed behind closed doors for some time, and sometimes that created tension in the community— Some open source projects are just too complex to be hobby projects — Cassandra is so complex that you won’t become a code contributor unless you’re working full-time on Cassandra, because that’s the level of skill you need to keep up. — How the relationship between a company and a project often changes as the technology matures. — The importance of addressing tensions between company and community head-on, as adults, when they occur — as well as why you need to remember to treat people as humans and remember that they have good days, bad days, goals and interests. Patrick on LinkedInMick on LinkedIn

28 Helmi 202440min

Suosittua kategoriassa Liike-elämä ja talous

sijotuskasti
mimmit-sijoittaa
psykopodiaa-podcast
puheenaihe
rss-rahapodi
ostan-asuntoja-podcast
pomojen-suusta
rss-startup-ministerio
rss-lahtijat
rss-rahamania
rahapuhetta
rss-neuvottelija-sami-miettinen
kasvun-kipuja
rss-h-asselmoilanen
rss-turvacast
taloudellinen-mielenrauha
leadcast
syo-nuku-saasta
muutosakatemia-coaching-podcast
lakicast