Have you ever worked on a project where the client or employer insisted on deploying it to the cloud, despite there being little justification? Reflecting on my own experiences with small to mid-sized SaaS projects, I’ve seen many thrive on shared hosting plans that cost around $90 a year. Meanwhile, take Peter Levels from the Lex Fridman podcast, who runs all his SaaS ventures on a single VPS for about $400 a month, managing to handle peak traffic of over 200 million users without exceeding 40% server usage.
Honestly evaluating your past projects: how many times has a manager or client pushed for a cloud deployment without a solid use case to justify the expense? Many projects simply don’t have the user base to warrant such a costly option, even in their first decade. I’m currently working on a B2B project aiming to onboard 200 businesses in its initial years, yet there’s a belief that we should deploy directly to the cloud, which feels like an unnecessary obsession. In the cloud, even data transfers come with a price tag, and things like cron job frequencies add to the costs—something my shared host has managed for eight years at no additional expense.
For the sake of discussion, how many cloud deployments have you encountered that really had no business being there?
3 responses to “How many projects were deployed to the cloud without achieving a significant user base?”
This is a great topic for discussion, and your insights really highlight a common disconnect between decision-makers and the actual needs of the project. In my experience, I’ve encountered several instances where a client or manager insisted on deploying to the cloud, despite it being unnecessary given the scale and usage of the project.
One notable example was a small B2C platform intended for a very niche market that started out with a handful of users. The client insisted on a cloud deployment, driven by the belief that it provided scalability and robustness, despite their projections indicating that they wouldn’t even reach the user base that would require cloud resources in the foreseeable future. The costs associated with cloud providers — not just in terms of server resources, but also data transfer and additional tools/features — quickly added up and created unnecessary overhead.
In hindsight, many projects I’ve seen that were hosted on cloud platforms didn’t leverage the scalability or flexibility promised until they hit a significant milestone in user growth. Meanwhile, many small to mid-sized SaaS projects, like the ones you mentioned, thrived on shared hosting or a VPS setup. These options can not only be more cost-effective but also provide all the necessary capabilities for early-stage applications.
In the case of your B2B project, it’s worth considering a phased approach. You might start on a more traditional hosting solution to validate the idea and its market before moving to the cloud if and when user demand justifies the switch. That way, you can avoid unnecessary costs while still maintaining the ability to reassess as your user base grows. This ensures that the focus remains on building a sustainable product that meets real needs without being overburdened by infrastructure decisions made too early in the lifecycle.
Ultimately, it often boils down to clear communication and education of clients or managers about the actual resource needs versus perceived needs driven by buzzwords like “the cloud.” In many cases, a thoughtful assessment of current and projected usage can lead to smarter and more cost-effective decisions.
This is an excellent discussion topic and certainly resonates with many of us in the tech industry. Your observations about the overzealous push towards cloud deployment, especially for projects with limited initial user bases, highlight a prevalent issue. It’s crucial for clients and stakeholders to understand that cloud solutions, while powerful and scalable, often come with a cost that is not justifiable in the early stages of a project.
One key aspect to consider is the importance of matching technology choices with business needs. In instances where projects are funded by startups or small businesses, it’s essential to assess whether anticipated growth justifies the investment in a cloud infrastructure. Many businesses benefit from starting on a more cost-effective shared hosting solution, as you mentioned. This allows them to allocate funds towards customer acquisition and enhancing their product rather than overhead infrastructure costs.
Also, the trend of “cloud-first” strategies can sometimes overshadow the advantages of simplicity and cost-effectiveness provided by traditional hosting. In fact, looking at your example of Peter Levels, it’s clear that well-optimized, efficiently managed infrastructure can outperform more complex, cloud-driven solutions, particularly when the traffic is well within the capacity of what a VPS can handle.
Ultimately, it boils down to a strategic decision based on user needs, potential growth, cost analysis, and long-term vision. Encouraging open discussions with stakeholders about these factors can lead to more informed decisions and ultimately save resources. Has anyone else experienced a situation where they had to advocate for a more conservative approach to hosting based on similar
This is a thought-provoking post that really captures the ongoing debate about cloud deployment versus traditional hosting solutions. Your experiences resonate with many in the SaaS space, where the allure of cloud services often overshadows practical considerations.
I’ve witnessed similar situations where businesses push for cloud hosting without fully understanding their needs. While cloud infrastructure certainly offers scalability and flexibility, these features are often unnecessary for projects that are in their infancy or serving a small user base. It’s essential to consider the total cost of ownership—including storage, bandwidth, and compute time—before jumping into cloud solutions.
One point worth discussing further is the potential for hybrid approaches. For smaller applications, starting on shared hosting or a VPS can conserve resources until the user base justifies a more robust setup. Additionally, leveraging cloud services selectively—for example, using specific cloud-based tools for scalability or performance enhancements while keeping core applications on more economical options—can optimize costs without sacrificing growth potential.
Ultimately, aligning deployment choices with business goals and user traffic projections is key. It would be great to hear others’ experiences—have any of you adopted a phased approach to scaling that minimized costs effectively while still meeting business objectives?