I wonder if those working in corporate IT realize that they're competing with Microsoft for money.
Most corporations see IT as an expense center. It's not a place where the business make money. It's simply a place where they spend it. You can argue the validity of that idea but whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. It's the way most businesses think.
Businesses, of course, try to limit expenses. They especially try to limit any increase in expenses. So basically there is a certain sized pile of money for IT to work with. If the costs of Microsoft infrastructure goes up, the difference is made up by cutting another part of the pile. The part of the pile that can be most easily managed is salaries.
>"I wonder if those working in corporate IT realize that they're competing with Microsoft for money."
Generally no, but I expect many are quickly realizing it.
Microsoft in particular has been very open about trying to sell things like Office 365 and Azure to Enterprises. They aren't afraid to be blunt and say "Hey, you can get rid of your staff if you go with this".
It's an odd relationship.
In my experience, many in corporate IT are perfectly happy to be simple facilitators - shoppers basically.
I believe the perception is "It won't be me", that being increasingly beholden to a vendor might prevent the creation of new positions or filling vacancies but will never eliminate their own positions.
The entire industry of internal IT support has hard times ahead. Anecdotally, I see XaaS being adopted surprisingly quickly. A few big VARs I've talked to have noticed this and have been realigning themselves to sell managed services instead of stopping at planning and implementation as they have in the past.
they aren't afraid to be blunt and say "Hey, you can get rid of your staff if you go with this".
During the release of, I think, Windows 2008, Microsoft put out an ad campaign that showed the IT staff doing the congo and other non-work things. It was a fun, upbeat message about how it made things so much easier. Only the real, unavoidable message was to HR and the executive -- give us some cash and you can start sending out the layoff notices.
I'm not judging Microsoft for that -- they've forever boasted that if you go with Microsoft stuff you can pay your employees less -- and efficiency is good for everyone. It was just such a bizarre ad, and seemed to be like one of those dark side Skittles ads, but minus the awareness of what it really was.
Yes, once you switch to ALL XaaS and ditch your IT staff, you are forever at the mercy of your existing XaaS vendor. You don't own the software, the vendor actually has your data somewhere in the cloud, and you have no one who can even make a credible recommendation on an alternative. They got you by the balls, and BTW, the XaaS pricing is tripling next month. Muahaha !
Actually Microsoft spend billions on marketing and employ top notch sales people. It is perfectly reasonable to assume they will do a better job of arguing to increase the size of the pile of money set aside for IT then you would.
Once the pile of money is increased it is a much easier job to argue for your share of it.
Most corporations see IT as an expense center. It's not a place where the business make money. It's simply a place where they spend it. You can argue the validity of that idea but whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. It's the way most businesses think.
Businesses, of course, try to limit expenses. They especially try to limit any increase in expenses. So basically there is a certain sized pile of money for IT to work with. If the costs of Microsoft infrastructure goes up, the difference is made up by cutting another part of the pile. The part of the pile that can be most easily managed is salaries.