<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>ROI on S3H.com</title>
    <link>https://s3h.com/tags/roi/</link>
    <description>Recent content in ROI on S3H.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://s3h.com/tags/roi/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Server Hardware in the Cloud Age Has a Different ROI Calculation</title>
      <link>https://s3h.com/2026/04/01/server-hardware-in-the-cloud-age-has-a-different-roi-calculation/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://s3h.com/2026/04/01/server-hardware-in-the-cloud-age-has-a-different-roi-calculation/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The cloud versus on-premises debate has settled into a more nuanced position than its early framing suggested. The argument that all workloads should move to cloud and that on-premises infrastructure would become obsolete was oversimplified. The organizations that moved all workloads to cloud and discovered that certain workload categories are more expensive to run in cloud than on-premises have been quietly repatriating those workloads for several years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current reality is a hybrid infrastructure landscape where the economic decision about where to run a workload depends on its specific characteristics — compute intensity, data volume, access patterns, regulatory requirements, and predictability — rather than on a blanket preference for either delivery model. Server hardware investment in this context requires the same rigor as any capital investment: a specific business case for the specific workloads that the hardware will run.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
