What reasons do you have for not moving to the cloud?

- Internet down, nobody can work (it happens to us once or twice a year, between a few minutes and a few hours).

- latency : we have one cloud app that is a pain to use since latency and sometimes bandwidth are not good enough (it got better since we got fiber, but still).

- our suppliers are very old school (one of them is still using Visual Studio 2008 for crying out loud) : we have to work around them, even "despite" them in certain instances.

- costs would not go down, they certainly would go up for a "worse" service

The only thing that cloud would give me is the peace of mind of not having to manage servers (if everything was serverless or managed by suppliers that is).

- High single instance reliability. I have ~1000 EC2 instances; every week I get a notification how an instance has been restarted to move it off failing hardware. I never got these in my DC

- Consistent large scale workloads at low latency. Nothing beats low latency then bare-metal servers. Also, it costs significantly cheaper running large clusters on bare-metal then in the cloud. If you move to the cloud, you need to use the cloud services else your costs are astronomically higher.

- If you already have datacenters that have been paid off why move to the cloud. Use your own data centers and run a hybrid cloud.

I think there is a reason allot of big tech companies roll their own cloud or do some kind of hybrid approach. Whe nyou running a app that is core to your infrastructure you do not want to rely on another persons hardware you want 100% control of everything. I have had route 53 cause issues, S3 cause issues, EC2 servers get stuck and there is nothing you can do but wait 15 min for the enterprise SLA of AWS. In a business critical system, 15 min is not good enough. You need your operations techie to be sprinting to the rack to hit the reset button. Just my experience.

As a consultant I work almost exclusively with enterprise customers using Azure. When moving to the cloud for some of them the most regular reasons to keep stuff on-prem are:

* Regulation: it's mostly about data can't leave the given country's border. There's usually not much you can do about it. Offload stuff to the cloud what you can (computing), keep on-prem what you must (data). In these cases the integration between the two environments can be a real challenge sometimes. But Azure is quite strong on that front.

* Stupid company policies set up during the last century or recently, but by people stuck in the last century. In some cases these can either be worked around or changed if you know the right people. But there's a lot of cases when it's hopeless from the start. Totally depends on company culture.

Money. I have a $5 VPS for my personal stuff. If I ever have anything else that needs more computing power than that, I'm going to run it from a server under my desk unless people pay enough to cover the cost.

In many markets there are regulatory regimes that prevent a migration to the cloud especially in sectors like banking and government departments.

One company I worked with had been around before cloud. They had plenty of server space (about a few building levels of servers) and even a backup power generator. I suppose they would move to cloud if they could, but at that level of scale and uptime, they might as well be the cloud.

There's still laws in some countries which require; on site storage, data-center in the country, weird periodic audits... All these are barriers to moving to the cloud

Quality of internet - little to no redundency if the primary drops.

Speed of internet.

Trust that cloud companies are not: A) Selling my info B) Using it against me

data/source code security

cost saving.