Linkedin, the professional social network owned by Microsoft, has shelved its plans to migrate its cloud infrastructure to Microsoft Azure, according to a report by CNBC. The project, code-named “Blueshift”, was announced in 2019 as a way to leverage Azure’s hardware and software innovations at global scale. However, after more than two years of work, LinkedIn decided to pause the migration and focus on scaling and innovating its own data centers.
What went wrong with Blueshift?
The exact reasons for LinkedIn’s change of direction are not clear, but some possible factors include:
Technical challenges
Moving a large and complex platform like LinkedIn to a different cloud provider is not a trivial task. It requires careful planning, testing, and coordination to ensure a smooth transition and avoid any disruptions or performance issues. LinkedIn may have encountered some technical difficulties or compatibility issues that made the migration more challenging than expected.
Also read: Key Digital Marketing Trends for 2024
Cost considerations
Migrating to Azure would also entail significant costs for LinkedIn, both in terms of the resources needed to execute the project and the fees paid to Microsoft for using its cloud services. LinkedIn may have realized that the benefits of moving to Azure did not outweigh the costs, especially given that LinkedIn already has a robust and efficient data center infrastructure that it has been investing in for years.
Strategic priorities
LinkedIn may have also decided to prioritize other aspects of its business over the cloud migration, such as developing new features, expanding its user base, and enhancing its security and privacy. LinkedIn may have felt that moving to Azure was not a critical or urgent need, and that it could achieve its goals better by focusing on its own data centers.
What does this mean for Microsoft and Azure?
LinkedIn’s decision to put Blueshift on hold is a setback for Microsoft and its cloud ambitions, as it shows that even its own subsidiary is not fully convinced by the value proposition of Azure. Microsoft has been competing fiercely with Amazon Web Services (AWS), the dominant player in the cloud market, and has been touting Azure as a key driver of its growth and innovation. Microsoft may have hoped that LinkedIn’s migration to Azure would serve as a showcase for its cloud capabilities and attract more customers to its platform.
Also read: Possiblyethereal: A New Tech Generation website
However, LinkedIn’s reversal does not necessarily mean that Microsoft and Azure have failed or lost their edge. LinkedIn still uses some Azure services for certain applications, and may resume its migration plans in the future. Microsoft also has many other successful and loyal customers for Azure, such as Adobe, AT&T, and Walmart. Microsoft may also learn from LinkedIn’s experience and improve its cloud offerings and support to make them more appealing and accessible to potential customers.
What does this mean for LinkedIn and its users?
LinkedIn’s decision to keep its own data centers may have some implications for its platform and its users, such as:
More control and flexibility
By maintaining its own data centers, LinkedIn may have more control and flexibility over its infrastructure and operations, and be able to customize and optimize them to suit its specific needs and preferences. LinkedIn may also be able to avoid some of the risks and uncertainties associated with relying on a third-party cloud provider, such as outages, security breaches, or policy changes.
More innovation and differentiation
By focusing on its own data centers, LinkedIn may also be able to innovate and differentiate its platform more effectively and efficiently, and offer more value and functionality to its users. LinkedIn may be able to leverage its own data centers to provide faster and more reliable performance, enhanced security and privacy, and unique features and services that are not available on other platforms.
More responsibility and accountability
By keeping its own data centers, LinkedIn may also have more responsibility and accountability for its infrastructure and operations, and be expected to deliver high-quality and consistent service to its users. LinkedIn may also have to invest more resources and effort to maintain and upgrade its data centers, and keep up with the latest technology trends and standards.
Frequently Asked Questions Of Microsoft Failed To Move Linkedin To Azure
Question: What was the project name and goal of moving LinkedIn to Azure?
Answer: The project name was “Blueshift” and the goal was to relocate LinkedIn’s data center technology out of its physical facilities and into Microsoft’s Azure cloud, which would give LinkedIn access to a wide array of hardware and software innovations, and unprecedented global scale.
Question: When and why did LinkedIn announce its plan to move to Azure?
Answer: LinkedIn announced its plan to move to Azure in 2019, three years after Microsoft acquired the company for $27 billion. LinkedIn had been using Azure for specific tasks, such as running 100 employee-facing applications, leveraging Azure FrontDoor, and consolidating its datacenter locations.
Question: When and why did LinkedIn shelve its plan to move to Azure?
Answer: LinkedIn shelved its plan to move to Azure in 2022, according to people familiar with the matter. The decision was made jointly by LinkedIn and Microsoft, as they decided to allocate resources to external Azure customers, given the incredible demand Azure was seeing and the growth of LinkedIn’s platform.
Question: What are the implications of LinkedIn’s decision for Microsoft and Azure?
Answer: LinkedIn’s decision represents a setback for Microsoft, which is chasing Amazon Web Services in the lucrative cloud infrastructure market and has been counting on cloud technology and services to fuel much of its growth. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella ran the cloud business before his elevation to his current job in 2014. Azure has been key to Microsoft’s growth under Nadella, as it competes with AWS and Google Cloud Platform for cloud dominance.
