I’m assuming privacy isn’t an issue and they don’t mind Amazon picking the winners in business.
From an IT operations perspective this makes so much sense they’ve already tried it before. They were called “thin clients” and just had enough compute and network to connect to run remote desktop software.
This greatly reduces the amount of spending you need to build out a large corporate network, and centralizes management just like they already do with stuff like VMWare.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Privacy doesn’t exist on corporate networks, so they don’t. However, the early thin clients had local servers. I don’t know how the very largest companies would feel about giving Amazon that much power.
timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Eh, depends. The price for something like VMware horizon was already damn expensive and that’s before you got to citrix prices (and this is pre broadcom takeover.)
For some places the costs are able to be recouped but it really depends. You still need plenty of scale to have that be viable IME.
My main point being there are a millions of small businesses and medium size ones that are still always going to be far better off with normal physical hardware.