>Hey, I'm not trying to talk you into anything. The Azure platform (or, for example, Amazons offerings) may not work for you.
>That said, I think most of the concerns you express above are not well founded.
>
>For example, you can still use SSMS to set up an Azure SQL database (although not quite as intuitively as when going against a normal SQL server). Worker web roles can give you the same functionality as your desktop 'robots'.
>Uploading via FTP offers no benefits over the Azure deployment process (in fact the opposite)
>
>The one point you make that may be valid is regarding backups. There is no simple backup process for Azure SQL - although paying for two instances of Azure SQL gets around that to a certain extent.

Backups are done by the robot. So, assuming a desktop robot application might be running, that would do.

>I see from Bill's post that he thinks maintaining your own hardware/software infrastructure is cheaper (and presumably more reliable?) than using Azure but I'm not sure I accept his findings (Bill - do you want to post your detailed comparative costings?). A couple of case studies show that some organisations have reduced their bill from $60k to $20k. Obviously MS are going to cherry pick the best examples but if those savings are achievable then it's worth a look.....
>
>On top of all that the data centre infrastructure that can guarantee such high availability is hard to beat.

Thanks for the information on this, this would be something to consider assuming such a move.