>>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.

SQL Azure simply doesn't have the normal Backup/Restore option. You hear lots of complaints so may they will eventually implement it.
For the moment there are a couple of options:
You can create a copy of the database to a regular SQL instance on your local machine.

Or this solution on Codeplex to backup to blob storage:
http://sqldacexamples.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Import%20Export%20Service%20Client&referringTitle=Documentation

Backups as protection against hardware failure should be unneccessary - but still needed to cope with incidents like accidental table deletion :-}

The one thing missing in Azure SQL that I would like is CLR support.....

>
>>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.