Data, software, complex processes – look around today’s IT landscape and it feels like everything lives in “the cloud.” But infrastructure decisions need more than buzzwords. Here’s why, and which alternatives are worth a closer look.

“Cloud”: a term without substance

It’s amazing how many things get called “the cloud.” Virtual machines, managed databases, proprietary platform services, file hosting – all bundled under the same label. But the term itself is technically almost meaningless. It glosses over what’s really underneath. And that makes it harder to make sound decisions.

That’s why we wrote some time ago why we find the word “cloud” problematic.
(Spoiler: Because it obscures rather than clarifies. Because it hides power structures. And because it often opens the door to technological dependency.)

Why it’s worth considering alternatives

Choosing an infrastructure model is never just a technical decision. It has economic, ethical, and political dimensions. It shapes how independently a system can be operated – and how resilient it is when circumstances change. And even though many sales pitches suggest otherwise, not everything about ”the cloud” is rosy.

1. Costs: “The cloud” isn’t automatically cheaper

“The cloud” sounds cheap because it lures you in with low entry costs. However, what seems affordable initially often becomes expensive in the long term. For continuously running services, owning your hardware — either directly or via colocation — is often more predictable and economical.

2. Know-how: Platform knowledge is lock-in knowledge

Deep dives into AWS or similar providers give you specialised expertise. Useful, sure, but almost only within that ecosystem. If you want to switch later, you often have to start from scratch. Running your own systems is different: you learn fundamentals that apply everywhere. From Linux administration to network security and open-source monitoring. That’s sustainable know-how. Platform knowledge, by contrast, is lock-in knowledge. It only works where you acquired it and keeps you tied to that provider.

3. Dependency: Freedom ends at the API boundary

Most platforms grant you exactly as much freedom as suits their business model. Once you’re tightly integrated, getting out is hard. Vendor lock-in isn’t an accident – it’s the strategy. And migration later can become a massive hurdle.

What is vendor lock-in?

Vendor lock-in occurs when providers design their software or services in such a way that switching to another provider is complicated, time-consuming and expensive. This creates a dependency that effectively ties customers to one provider.

4. Data protection: Not every data centre is GDPR-compliant

Even if your “cloud” server is in Frankfurt, US laws may still apply – including access by authorities. Anyone handling sensitive data needs to take this seriously. Because privacy is not a checkbox in the UI. It’s an architectural principle.

5. Global access isn’t a “cloud” feature

Accessing systems from anywhere isn't something only the cloud can do. With your own servers, redundant connections and robust security measures in place, you can make your systems available around the world. You don't need a platform provider for that — just solid engineering.

What are the alternatives?

Plenty. Here’s a quick look at the main ones, with their strengths and trade-offs:

Your own hardware in a data center (Colocation)

You buy the hardware, run it in a third-party data center – and keep full control. No surprise updates, no hidden price hikes, no dependencies.
Advantages: control, predictability, data protection
Disadvantages: investment, responsibility

Managed hosting

You rent dedicated servers and hand off operations – without losing transparency or independence.
Advantages: less effort, still no lock-in
Disadvantages: less fine-grained control than with colocation

Hybrid architectures

Some services colocated, others external. The best of both worlds – if put together with care. Advantages: flexibility, selective optimisation
Disadvantages: added complexity

On-premises

Your own hardware, in your own building. Maximum independence – but also maximum effort.
Advantages: full control, no third parties
Disadvantages: infrastructure requirements (power, bandwidth, physical security), maintenance, high effort

We’re not against “the cloud” – we’re against lazy thinking

Let's be clear: at bevuta, we don't oppose the cloud. We oppose uncritical decisions. We oppose the default solution being chosen simply because 'that's what everyone does now'. We’re also opposed to the belief that 'cloud' always equals 'modern', 'cheap' or 'future-proof'.

Those who are building systems that are meant to last, to carry responsibility, to protect data and support democratic values shouldn’t rely on sales promises. They should rely on their own convictions – and on solid technical understanding.

One tool among many

“The cloud” isn’t a solution. It’s a tool. A powerful one – but just one among many.

Developing responsibly means thinking further ahead. About data protection. About sustainability. About control. About building lasting knowledge. About what remains when the hype fades.

And above all: about a world where we don’t grow ever more dependent – but more sovereign.

It doesn’t always have to be “the cloud.” But it should never be thoughtless.