Home
Join

89 Replies

  • For sure its better to have an external company like Bluehost / Godaddy /Hostgator, etc but why?

    Because if you have an external specialized company like them, you wont worry about maintenance of the server, lost data, have your info always active (24/7) instead if you have in house, and you have problems, you must to look for somebody who can help you, you can lost data, and you will not be able to manage your business.

    Regards.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Definitely hosted

    Spice (3) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Unless you are familiar with supporting Email Server then a hosted solution is recommended, it should also include archiving and Email filtering.

    In the past these online services were'nt available or were expensive but now are cheaper to use then hosting your own.

    Spice (14) flagReport
    6 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • There are pros and cons on both sides:

    Hosted solutions are easier to setup and you don't have to worry about maintaining/backing them up.

    In-house solutions give you more privacy and could be less expensive in the long run. Many email servers are based on perpetual license and therefore, cost a one-time license fee. 

    Summary: if privacy is important, go with in-house solution. Go with hosted if you don't want to maintain email servers.

    Spice (13) flagReport
    6 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Spice (44) flagReport
    11 of 46 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Well they have already Outsourced their email ........

    Spice (13) flagReport
    5 of 6 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • dannyh2 wrote:

     you don't have to worry about maintaining/backing them up.


    if anything having external hosted email should make you more worried about security/maintenance/backup

    Spice (17) flagReport
    6 of 8 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • This question has been bandied about for a decade or more now.

    The answer is...... it depends

    You cannot ask the rest of the world what's right for your business.  You need to look at your business priorities, requirements, compliance needs, local comms. infrastructure speed and reliability etc etc, plus skills of the IT staff, and make the call whats right for your company in your situation.

    Some (even many) will find hosted suits them best, others (even more I'd suggest) would go with O365, and others will find that neither of those options fit and need in-house.

    I would say that in house is the choice you make if the other 2 are not a good fit, but it's not a "wrong" option by any means.

    Give you're already hosted, unless you're having issues with that you're probably best staying as you are.

    Spice (19) flagReport
    8 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • If you want to know popularity, you should run a poll. But what do you learn of popularity?

    And although you may learn more by answers which solution is better, it will probably not help you much. You need to know your requirements, including (legal and other like insurer) compliance aspects. So you want probably to know which is a better fit for your requirements. And unless you don't provide these requirements, only you can answer which is a better fit.

    Popularity has nothing to do what is a better fit.

    dannyh2 wrote:

    There are pros and cons on both sides:

    I widerly agree with Danny. Though there are more pros and cons. And you need to wheight-in how much expertise you have or want to have in-house on email server management. And on the other side, there are different sorts of data loss risks and different options to address them. There are data losses due to dated storage media becoming damaged, or due to an attack to overwrite parts of the data like in a ransomware attack, or there is a completely different kind of data loss where somebody or some bot in-house tries to leak classified data via email, eventually hidden inside image or video attachements.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • You're asking two different questions: Which is more popular and which is better to use.  The answer to both is 'it depends'.
    Older, larger and more established companies will use on-prem servers because they used email before the cloud was a thing, sometimes before the Internet was a thing, and they have the skills and experience to support it.
    Smaller and newer companies usually are hosted.
    I'd suggest the first two things to move to hosted are (1) your web site, and (2) email.
    Spice (3) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • I think the answer really has more to do with the size of the company. Hosted is much more expensive per user BUT if you are a small (or even medium) sized company the savings come in not having to manage your own email infrastructure. For a large company it doesn't really make sense to spend all that extra money to offload the responsibility of managing your own email environment since you will have the manpower already in house.

    Spice (4) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • MrPigdog wrote:

    You're asking two different questions: Which is more popular and which is better to use.  The answer to both is 'it depends'.
    Older, larger and more established companies will use on-prem servers because they used email before the cloud was a thing, sometimes before the Internet was a thing, and they have the skills and experience to support it.
    Smaller and newer companies usually are hosted.
    I'd suggest the first two things to move to hosted are (1) your web site, and (2) email.

    Actually I have the skills and experience to do on-prem BUT in a company of 200 employees and it's just me (and a Helpdesk guy) handling everything it is worth it for us to drop that hosting responsibility and let O365 handle the infrastructure.  It's a MUCH smaller learning curve for the other guy with no experience so we can easily share the management.  It might be a lot more expensive to go hosted for us but in the end it's just easier on a small team which translates to more reliable.

    Spice (6) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Outsourced has nothing to do with it.  I've been outsourced 4 times and in each case, even though we had the skills, it was more to do with moving the expenses to a different side of the budget in order for the management to look like they were saving money so they could increase their bonus.  What they actually got was poor service that came at a slower pace for more money but the bonuses still get paid.

    Spice (11) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • dannyh2 wrote:

    There are pros and cons on both sides:

    Hosted solutions are easier to setup and you don't have to worry about maintaining/backing them up.

    Not true.  O365 doesn't backup your email.  You need to purchase a third party solution for that.  Now they do have a much better infrastructure than a small company can afford (which really is backed up BUT just try and get a mailbox restored).

    Spice (6) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Personally, I prefer having mail server in house. I don't like not having control of our data. If something happens you have to call and fight with them to fix stuff, troubleshoot or restore things. Do they actually back stuff up, is it actually secure and patched?

    Spice (7) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • hosted. no doubt

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • This is like the third or fourth topic on this subject in the last week or two.  

    And we have in-house here.  But that may be changing soon.  

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • From the variety of responses, I think the takeaways on this are:

    • There is no one-size-fits-all solution on email. There are lots of variables when considering what to use for business email.
    • Many companies prefer to have someone else manage their email for them, while many others prefer to maintain control of their email in-house.
    • The amount of time & labor required to maintain an in-house email server can vary by product. Expect to spend much more time managing Microsoft Exchange than MDaemon or another mail server.
    • Various regulations may require that a company use an on-premise solution to ensure complete control.
    • Hosted isn't necessarily cheaper per-person/per-month. Of course, this can vary widely depending on what two services you're comparing. For example, licensing costs for on-premise Exchange can be very high, making a hosted solution much more attractive, but when you consider other on-premise solutions, hosted doesn't always end up being less expensive.
    • Just like with on-premise email servers, there are many hosted solutions to choose from in addition to the "big three".
    • The level of security and redundancy safeguards in place, plus SLAs, compliance and other security measures isn't always based on the size of the provider. Using a smaller hosting company doesn't necessarily mean less security due to less name recognition. For example, the hosted service my company provides has several data centers around the world with full replication & multi-destination backups.
    • Can you get support when you need it? How knowledgeable is the support staff?
    • What extra features do you need, and do they cost extra? For example, some companies charge extra for integrated email encryption, while some include it in the license price.
    • Is it crucial that your users be able to access their email if the internet goes down in your area?
    I'm sure I can think of more, but the point is that both hosted and on-premise email solutions have their benefits & disadvantages.
    Spice (6) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • We use hosted with Office 365 and there are mobility advantages to it. I kind of miss having on on prem email server but it more of a preference thing

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • On premises vs hosted email isn't really a matter of what is "popular", and I wouldn't recommend choosing your tactics based on what the majority of others do.

    Each has their benefits.  Internally, you may have a lower cost for a large population, and you likely have greater control, but external hosting, especially O365, has pretty good administrative control, and costs $4/user/month for 50GB of email storage.  That is a hard number to beat.

    When hosted internally, your email is dependent upon your own storage, backup, and bandwidth. Users tend to keep a lot of email, so storage and backup can become challenging.  If you lose internet connection and have remote offices, only those in the same facility as the email server can access the email server.  Of course, that doesn't help much since email isn't flowing between your firm and external companies, so effectively nobody has external email including your remote offices.  With external hosting, whichever office loses connectivity will not have email, but the others can keep going.

    If you are interested in collaboration platforms, like SharePoint or Teams, Microsoft O365 integrates with their email hosting, but doesn't with in-house Exchange.  If you're using Google Docs, then you've basically chosen external email hosting already. 

    Spice (3) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • I would recommend outsourcing to Office 365. I am working on getting that implemented at my organization. It is hard to argue against O365.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Unless this is for top secret e-mail which is handled in an intranet without any external connections, this question was answered in like 2017.  External.

    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Robert, I love your posts!  Comes from a person that has seen it all and been doing this IT thing a very long time; I sense...

    I am also pro in-house email.  Honestly why add more subscription services to your enterprise?  When times are lean you're still caught up in hosted email.

    Think about this folks.

    I love innovation, and am a cloud expert; but for years I supported in-house email servers before cloud was a thing... and we had zero issues and zero recurring costs.

    Long term cloud email is more expensive.  I can prove this with math.

    Spice (14) flagReport
    3 of 8 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Depends.  Does your company want to own the the software, hardware and responsibility of need to maintain that; or would they rather it be an Operating Expense and pay monthly with a predicable cost.   Also, do you already have expertise in managing Exchange, or will there be a learning curve?

    The cost of owning (and keeping up-to-date) is similar if not more than hosted for most companies.  You can't just buy Exchange 2010 and never upgrade anymore, most of us have to meet compliance which requires latest security patches and features.  Can you afford downtime?  Unless you are going to build a fully resilient system, you are going to have some down-time - how much is reasonable and do you want to be doing your upgrades at 3am?

    That said, we use Microsoft O365, and every time I turn around there is a new feature that isn't included in the tier we are on, so it will cost an addition $5, $10, $20, $50/user per month - sometimes I do wonder if migrating to the cloud is saving us any money...

    So to answer you question, I have no idea which is better - and really, nobody else does either.  You need to choose the model that makes the most sense for your business, and be willing to change if/when your business needs change - just because one is the right answer today, doesn't mean it will still be the right answer tomorrow.

    Spice (8) flagReport
    3 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Hosted all day, every day and twice on Sunday.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • If you have someone that can manage self-hosted then in my opinion is the better route (long term).

    Popularity wise it's off-site hosting, as you don't necessarily need someone with that level of expertise on-staff (short-term cost effective).

    It really depends on the business and its requirements, but self-hosted email provides a way to be more flexible and independent of a 3rd party.

    I do see the value in using off-site hosting, but for me I can manage email servers and I work cheap.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Bruce5601 wrote:

    MrPigdog wrote:

    You're asking two different questions: Which is more popular and which is better to use.  The answer to both is 'it depends'.
    Older, larger and more established companies will use on-prem servers because they used email before the cloud was a thing, sometimes before the Internet was a thing, and they have the skills and experience to support it.
    Smaller and newer companies usually are hosted.
    I'd suggest the first two things to move to hosted are (1) your web site, and (2) email.

    Actually I have the skills and experience to do on-prem BUT in a company of 200 employees and it's just me (and a Helpdesk guy) handling everything it is worth it for us to drop that hosting responsibility and let O365 handle the infrastructure.  It's a MUCH smaller learning curve for the other guy with no experience so we can easily share the management.  It might be a lot more expensive to go hosted for us but in the end it's just easier on a small team which translates to more reliable.

    If you decide on O365, make sure you have the security settings right for your tenant.  Implement Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Data Retention Policies (DRP), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP), Advanced Discovery, and Multi Factor Authentication (MFA) as a foundation.  Then consider EMS and P1 licensing for automated data classification and control over remote email access, distribution, and document security even outside your tenant.  I am speaking from an O365 perspective.  Not just Exchange Online.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Ours is hosted. Before I worked here, it was in-house and my boss thought it was a nightmare - this was more than 10 years ago. But she's resistant to bringing it back in-house because of that. 

    These days, it's hosted, it's webmail only, and IT staff are not on call 24/7 because of email (other things, yes, but not email). 

    We use Rackspace for about 275 employees, 3 IT staff, 9 offices, 5 24/7 programs.

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Both sides have their pros and cons.  Is there anyone in-house that's an Exchange Administrator or that can fix anything that breaks on the mail server?  I've been in both scenarios.. it wasn't fun to get a call on a Sunday at 11 pm because the HS Principal wasn't getting her emails and needed it fixed ASAP because of appointments on Monday morning when the school district I worked for at the time was using Exchange 2007 for everyone.  It also wasn't fun to see Outlook error messages that I had to look up and find what the core issue was just so I can wait on the phone and finally get through to a technician at our hosted email service to resync certain mail accounts that were having issues while we have hosted email at my current job.

    I'd probably prefer hosted in my current position for the fact I'm the only IT guy on-site and also due to the nature of our business and financial auditors.  I do feel good when I learn and can fix things with the knowledge I have, but it does wear on you and stress you out at times when everything is on your shoulders and you're only ever "a phone call away".

    In the world of IT, it's never that cut and dry regarding the original posters question lol lots of layers to go through and you have to think ahead a bit before making any decision.  I guess the best decision to make always comes down to money, but you also have to look at the skillset/experience of your IT people as well.

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Hosted...  a lot less headaches and I don't have to be up at 3am rebuilding an email server.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Should anything be in the cloud, it should be email, not file servers or other servers with critical data, imo. 99% of the people already do it for their personal email. No reason to carry more weight when you don't have to. 

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • I'd wager that hosted e-mail is far more popular. I'm of the opinion that there's no real answer to "which is better?". It's cliche, but you really need to figure out what works best for your environment.

    Hosted is probably 'better' for more environments--hence the popularity--but there are definitely cases where you need the oversight & control offered by on-prem solutions.

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • There will always always always be a reason to need one or the other.

    Skill level changes the game.  Legal requirements change the game.

    Corporate and uptime requirements, needs, desires, financial choices...

    > Control <

    There will never be a single answer that covers all the bases for everyone's needs.

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Hosted. Period.  Not in-house.   Never, ever.  

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • markz2 wrote:

    Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Robert, I love your posts!  Comes from a person that has seen it all and been doing this IT thing a very long time; I sense...

    I am also pro in-house email.  Honestly why add more subscription services to your enterprise?  When times are lean you're still caught up in hosted email.

    Think about this folks.

    I love innovation, and am a cloud expert; but for years I supported in-house email servers before cloud was a thing... and we had zero issues and zero recurring costs.

    Long term cloud email is more expensive.  I can prove this with math.

    Really? Zero issues? Zero recurring cost?

    I get your argument and what you're trying to say, but I think you're stretching the truth here. You never once had a physical email server with hardware issues? You never had to replace hardware?

    Let's be real here. What everyone else is saying is right, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to email, let alone any other technology.

    Spice (4) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • TCO and performance will always be better in house if you know what you are doing.

    Cloud is just a way to automate disaster recovery and infrastructure redundancy.  Everything else (backups, security, management) you're going to have to do yourself anyways, eventually if not immediately.  And when the **** hits the fan, don't be surprised if you feel helpless with a cloud provider.  Their outages are bigger and more complicated than your outages and you'll have no control over recovery ETA.

    That being said, some places will prefer $100/month to $5k all at once, and you can spin up a cloud server much faster (usually).

    Everyone talks Exchange on in-house, but really that's a discussion of platforms more than locations, and O365/Azure Exchange has most of the same issues as on-site and is slower.  Linux-based mail servers will run blazing fast on-site without the dependency hell of Exchange.


    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • O365 is not the silver bullet people make it out to be.  You should assess the needs of your company/client.

    Where I've had on-prem, I've had uptime that way surpasses O365.  If that's important AND you can fund on-prem (including the skills), go on-prem.

    Small client, that doesn't have these? Go O365.

    Client with multiple small sites across the world? Probably O365, but where do you host the data?

    Then make sure you pick the right version of O365.  Want to geo-restrict? Ain't happening with anything below E5 unless you're comfortable with a bit of Powershell or you buy into Intune subscriptions.

    DO you need AAD sync? Federated?

    Also factor in backing up O365 v Backing up on-prem.  You ARE backing up O365 rather than relying on MS, 30days and account hold policies, right?

    There is no "one size fits all"answer.  If you think there is then you're not thinking it through. IMO, YMMV and all that.

    *added*

    Don't forget that O365 opens up the wonderful world of Sharepoint/OneDrive/Teams (and others depending on level).  You factored in that? Even if you just set it for email, people will discover the features and then you're into a whole new level of "oh shit, where can they save data/who can they share it with/how do I back it up?

    Spice (3) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • For me the main driver for moving critical services like email to the cloud is that disaster recovery becomes someone else's responsibility. Ever had to bring an Exchange Server back from the dead? It's not fun.  

    Spice (2) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Dan5623 wrote:

    For me the main driver for moving critical services like email to the cloud is that disaster recovery becomes someone else's responsibility. Ever had to bring an Exchange Server back from the dead? It's not fun.  

    There are ways to make it easy/easier, especially in the days of Virtualization.

    Spice (3) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • We recently went from in-house to hosted. Like many others have stated, there are pros and cons for both. It all comes down to two or three questions:

    1. Do I have the manpower and skills to continue managing my on-prem?

    1.5. If answer 1 is no...do you trust x or y company with the task of handling your sensitive data?

    2. Am I willing to subject myself to yearly subscription costs for a constantly upgraded product, or am I content with the investment made how many years ago (this includes your ability to continuously secure your email server)? NB. I am aware that there are on-prem subscription solutions, like Kerio that keeps your software up to date but I'm assuming that this is not the case in your scenario.

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Working in the education sector we don't pay for hosted and we were paying for in house so it made more sense to make the transition.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Huw3481 wrote:

    Don't forget that O365 opens up the wonderful world of Sharepoint/OneDrive/Teams (and others depending on level).  You factored in that? Even if you just set it for email, people will discover the features and then you're into a whole new level of "oh shit, where can they save data/who can they share it with/how do I back it up?

    Good points about O365.  One note, though, you can restrict/disable Sharepoint/OneDrive/Teams with a combination of O365 admin settings and AD GPOs. 

    We're a small company and use VMware.  We have an on-prem Exchange VM.  We have excellent uptime and very few problems.  Because we already have the infrastructure, it's cost effective to keep it on-prem.  We also have better control over the data for our auditing requirements.  Last year we switched to O365 for our Office licenses.  We've locked down everything that comes bundled with O365 except for Skype for Business. 

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • Microsoft Office 365 ... it just works and works well.


    Spice (2) flagReport
    1 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Robert, come on now. You almost always recommend things that are best for the business, so why would this be any different? 

    Spice (2) flagReport
    2 found this helpful thumb_up thumb_down
  • Long term cloud email is more expensive.  I can prove this with math.

    Last time I ran the math on this (at least 2 years ago) it came out as you say, with on-premise being cheaper. Longer the term, wider the margin got as well as I recall. However, as others have been keen to point out, there really isn't a one-size-fits-all approach here. Operational burdens and headaches of O365 are without a doubt less than that of on-prem Exchange, that much is for certain. Hell, the administrative assistant can run O365, and lots do. That ease-of use does come at a premium though, of course. 

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • AlanLloyd wrote:

    markz2 wrote:

    Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Robert, I love your posts!  Comes from a person that has seen it all and been doing this IT thing a very long time; I sense...

    I am also pro in-house email.  Honestly why add more subscription services to your enterprise?  When times are lean you're still caught up in hosted email.

    Think about this folks.

    I love innovation, and am a cloud expert; but for years I supported in-house email servers before cloud was a thing... and we had zero issues and zero recurring costs.

    Long term cloud email is more expensive.  I can prove this with math.

    Really? Zero issues? Zero recurring cost?

    I get your argument and what you're trying to say, but I think you're stretching the truth here. You never once had a physical email server with hardware issues? You never had to replace hardware?

    Let's be real here. What everyone else is saying is right, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to email, let alone any other technology.

    He clearly is not taking into account his own salary when he says "zero recurring cost"....but you better believe the C-suits are, lol 

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • How many users are we talking about and how much email administration are you willing to take on?

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • AlanLloyd wrote:

    markz2 wrote:

    Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Robert, I love your posts!  Comes from a person that has seen it all and been doing this IT thing a very long time; I sense...

    I am also pro in-house email.  Honestly why add more subscription services to your enterprise?  When times are lean you're still caught up in hosted email.

    Think about this folks.

    I love innovation, and am a cloud expert; but for years I supported in-house email servers before cloud was a thing... and we had zero issues and zero recurring costs.

    Long term cloud email is more expensive.  I can prove this with math.

    Really? Zero issues? Zero recurring cost?

    I get your argument and what you're trying to say, but I think you're stretching the truth here. You never once had a physical email server with hardware issues? You never had to replace hardware?

    Let's be real here. What everyone else is saying is right, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to email, let alone any other technology.

    of course it is an exaggeration; of course I've seen issues.  I support office 365, cloud, hosted, all types...

    but end of the day; you will pay more for cloud.  it isn't an argument... unless you have a string of bad luck and have to replace your infrastructure every single year.... and that's not happening.  I've seen servers run 10-15 years with exchange 2003.... and still chugging away.  It's not rare.  I wouldn't recommend that but it's doable (worse case scenario).

    But, that's experience talking.  I've been in tech since the 90s.

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • CrimsonKidA wrote:

    AlanLloyd wrote:

    markz2 wrote:

    Robert5205 wrote:

    Treat your email like you'd treat yourself. If you want to be outsourced eventually, do the same with your email.

    Robert, I love your posts!  Comes from a person that has seen it all and been doing this IT thing a very long time; I sense...

    I am also pro in-house email.  Honestly why add more subscription services to your enterprise?  When times are lean you're still caught up in hosted email.

    Think about this folks.

    I love innovation, and am a cloud expert; but for years I supported in-house email servers before cloud was a thing... and we had zero issues and zero recurring costs.

    Long term cloud email is more expensive.  I can prove this with math.

    Really? Zero issues? Zero recurring cost?

    I get your argument and what you're trying to say, but I think you're stretching the truth here. You never once had a physical email server with hardware issues? You never had to replace hardware?

    Let's be real here. What everyone else is saying is right, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to email, let alone any other technology.

    He clearly is not taking into account his own salary when he says "zero recurring cost"....but you better believe the C-suits are, lol 

    Dude, yes reality.  salaries are paid.  but... recurring costs are very different versus salary.  that's not the argument.

    look at cloud recurring costs... subscription based costs are killing businesses long term.

    economy hits lean time; I would rather pay a local IT guru to keep my infrastructure going, than $24/month for every one of my endpoints... 

    that overhead will kill ya, it adds up.  this isn't rocket science but i would be happy to quantify some algorithms.

    of course there is a time and place for everything... but hosted locally; we will see the trends going back to it.  i promise. :)

    Spice (1) flagReport
    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down
  • One man shop. Hosted! O365

    Was this post helpful? thumb_up thumb_down

Read these next...