Azure Stack Reviews

The primary use cases are in banking and capital markets.

The feature I have found most valuable in Azure Stack is Fabric.

I utilize its unified application development model, actually using OneLake. It has simplified app deployment for me because it is a good one with not much complexity. OneLake is used where a lakehouse is used on OneLake, so it is a very easy ecosystem.

I use Azure Stack for regulatory compliance. It has benefited my organization as it is implemented according to the standards, including GDPR and all, so it works.

Overall, Azure Stack has positively impacted my organization with a 40% increase, optimized also and increased.

It is difficult to say about Azure Stack improvement because I need to revisit and study it again.

The pricing is okay, but on the services side, perhaps we need to think about some services, not all. I would not like to see any additional features in the future.

To give them more like a 9 out of 10 or 10 out of 10, I think they need to improve on the interface, implementation, configuration, and integration with other products, so I rate them an eight. As compared to AWS, they need to add more features.

I would like to see operations and storage features, like AI features or security features.

Currently, I am using Hevo.

I would rate their technical support as a good one, around seven.

It is okay; overall it is good without room for improvement when it comes to response time or first-level support quality.

Positive

Regarding return on investment, it is good with a 40% return on investment.

I am working with Azure cloud and AWS cloud.

I also have experience with Google Cloud, having worked with AWS for four years, Azure for four years, and Google Cloud for two or three years.

I have been dealing with Azure Stack. I have been using Azure Stack for four years. I have been working with it myself, not just as a consultant or reseller.

It is operations, meaning DevOps, operational level, then data storage, then archive, so it has good integration capabilities.

AWS has these features, and I would like to see similar ones in Microsoft. I have been a customer or partner of Microsoft.

I would rate this review a seven overall.

My primary use case for this solution is for cybersecurity and device management.

I find Cloud App Security and activity alerts particularly valuable. They allow me to track all user activities. Everything is stored under one roof, so there is no need for different licenses for different components.

The precision of anonymous activity tracking should be improved, particularly in identifying the correct location because IP information is sometimes inaccurate. For instance, when I access resources in India, it might inaccurately show that I'm from a different city or state.

I have been working entirely on Azure for more than five years.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the stability of Azure Stack as nine.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the scalability of Azure Stack as eight.

The response time for technical support is very poor. It takes days to receive a response, and the technicians handling the tickets do not seem very technical.

Negative

I previously used other solutions like ThreatLocker, which are easier to implement and have better customer service and documentation.

If you know what you're doing, the initial setup is easy. If not, it can be difficult.

If Microsoft lowers the price, more small businesses would be able to adopt the Enterprise E5 license.

I evaluated other solutions like ThreatLocker, especially due to its ease of implementation and effective customer service.

I would recommend Azure Stack to other users. I prefer Azure because it allows me to manage everything with one license. 

Overall, I rate Azure Stack an eight out of ten.

We basically offer IaaS, Infrastructure as a Service model, and we can enable PaaS, but the demand is very low in our region due to some dependencies in the management.

I am very much impressed with Azure Stack, especially regarding security, complete compliance, data sovereignty, and data security. I'm very much satisfied because I am with the audit team of CSA, CITC, and most of the controls are applied by default. We are much satisfied with regards to governance and control.

I assess Azure Stack's integration capabilities with existing IT investments as good; it runs on Hyper-V. When it comes to governance, data sovereignty, and data security for compliance overall, it performs well.

The difficulties we face involve the lack of support, which is one reason the product isn't selling well in the market. Perhaps it relates to our sales team's strategy, but management looks for a balanced product that utilizes existing hardware, fulfills external customer demand, and leverages the scalability of the cloud model.

An improvement for Azure Stack would be in third-party integration; it feels very restricted and closed concerning hardware. For example, I have Dell EMC hardware, but I want to integrate it with other major hardware such as Cisco, IBM, Lenovo, or Supermicro, and I can't do that.

They should also improve third-party integration regarding security and new services such as AI as a service. I expect more towards AI-enabled models, and GPU as a service is also not offered.

We deployed Azure Stack in 2019, and it has been almost five years.

Azure Stack Hub's hybrid cloud operation efficiencies are my next step in promoting a hybrid model. The company feels that Azure Stack Hub has total control and governance, but my concern is that everything comes from Microsoft validation and verification. It's not similar to other cloud models or platforms. Our company seeks cost-effective and more flexible open systems, and we find it difficult to integrate with third-party hardware. For instance, if I have an XYZ storage and want to integrate it with Azure Stack Hub, we face challenges.

I have to clarify that we have Microsoft support through Dell because we have Azure Stack running on Dell hardware, Dell EMC hardware. Any support we receive is through Dell EMC, as that's a policy from Microsoft itself.

Positive

We enable Key Vault for protecting the keys and making it centralized, although there is no such request from the customer to implement and configure it. The infrastructure is using Key Vault, but inside Azure Stack Hub, not within public Azure.

We have certifications such as CSA 270017, 270018, and 27001, focusing on enterprise compliance for other platforms, but Azure Stack Hub usually applies cloud certification from CSA.

The pricing is expensive, especially today as most platforms embrace cloud models, promoting different stacks that support heterogeneous hardware and hybrid model environments, offering full multi-tenancy. While the demand is huge in Saudi Arabia with significant requirements, the pricing and product aren't very sellable or profitable. This is partly due to hardware restrictions and Microsoft licensing.

GPU as a service is what I'm referring to. If I want to run an in-house application on Azure Stack Hub, I cannot enable it without changing the whole platform and the hardware, as the GPUs are absent and cannot be added to the existing setup.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Azure Stack a rating of seven.

We have our services platform built on Azure Stack. We are building our entire technology stack for serving business needs on Azure Stack. We are using Event Hubs, Event Grids, Synapse, and Azure App service.

It meets our requirements and we have continued with that stack. We did explore disaster recovery options, but currently we are satisfied with the solution. It is simpler to use this platform.

We wanted to proceed with an integrated solution from the same cloud provider, so we are using Azure Stack. We use APIs and API management primarily. We do not use any specific other integrations beyond APIs to integrate with systems.

We would appreciate a more competitive pricing model, as many new features are being introduced that we are not always aware of. The autoscaling functionality could be simplified. Many resources get created in Azure Stack, and managing those resources can be challenging. Additionally, whenever there is a notification about shelf life, monitoring and upgrading require significant attention and effort.

We have been using Azure Stack for three to four years.

We are using platform as a service, and it has been straightforward.

It is stable with 99.9% uptime.

We invest efforts in monitoring and evaluating options for scaling up and down. You have to invest effort as it does not occur automatically. Monitoring, changing plans, and consolidating things are necessary parts of the process to avoid excessive costs.

We are satisfied with the support. The support rating would be around eight points.

Positive

We explored CrowdStrike previously when we were dependent on a vendor to provide services. However, due to cost considerations, we did not proceed with that solution.

There is no maintenance required beyond monitoring.

We are using Azure Stack exclusively. Our implementation is completely on the Azure Stack platform.

I cannot provide specific comments on resource savings, but we have seen positive returns.

Maintenance is included as part of the overall cost.

We explored CrowdStrike previously when we were dependent on a vendor to provide services. However, due to cost considerations, we did not proceed with that solution.

My overall rating for Azure Stack would be eight out of ten points.

I mostly deal with Office 365 and Defender sometimes, and Azure for hosting a couple of our solutions.

I am using Azure Stack myself primarily for hosting our security solutions in Azure.

I do not utilize its unified application development model.

I do use Azure Stack for regulatory compliance.

There is no complaint when it comes to response time or first-level support quality.

I think Azure Stack is a bit expensive, but it is definitely easier to calculate because of the calculator that has been provided. It is easy to do it that way, but it could have been a bit cheaper. We look at the Indian market over here, and we have other local providers who offer much better pricing.

I would rate the technical support an eight from one to ten.

Positive

From my perspective, I would rate Azure Stack an eight from one to ten.

I do not think of any additional features right now because I do not actually use the product, and because I focus on the pre-sales, the delivery team would be more able to help with additional feature requests.

My overall review rating for Azure Stack is eight.

We use Azure Stack for repository management, storage, and services such as speech recognition, text-to-speech, and speech-to-text. These services are essential for the development lifecycle. You can check the relevant information on GitHub for application storage and CI/CD pipeline releases.

Face recognition for security in web applications can use AI services for processing. To store data, you can use SQL Azure, which involves exposing an API to access information from the face recognition service. You need to connect with Azure SQL Database and handle any issues related to JNC charts or time functions.

For example, you might photograph a person in front of a PC or laptop. This image can be processed using Azure face recognition services. The system compares the image against a repository in SQL Azure. Access can be granted to the application if there is a match with the stored data. If there's no match, the system will notify that the person is not an employee.

Maintenance can be complex due to the need for specific resources. One potential issue is that users may need to have their cameras on for authentication, which can be a problem if they don’t have a camera or if it's disabled. In such cases, traditional authentication methods may need to be used as an alternative. While this serves as an exception, managing consistently might be challenging.

The system is very stable because you only need to manage the resources based on whether you choose cloud or on-premise deployment.

For on-premise installations, you need to provide a server or virtual server to run the solution. Additionally, you’ll need to open specific ports for API communication, face recognition, and SQL Server access. Proper security measures involve configuring certificates to restrict access to only the necessary services.

In a cloud environment, the setup is simpler since it integrates directly with your existing infrastructure. You only need to manage user roles and grant access to the relevant services, such as SQL Azure and AI components.

The process is straightforward because it's a custom solution designed for use within your network. Many companies integrate it with Active Directory, making it even simpler. Essentially, it's a web-based interface that functions like middleware. Users navigate to a single page within their company’s network. From there, they can access Azure Stack by taking a photo for validation. In just a few seconds, users are granted access to multiple platforms.

Deployment across Azure Stack involves managing security effectively. When users forget their passwords, they need to reset them, which can sometimes be lengthy. Users first enter their email address to reset a password and then click on the "Forgot Password" link. They will receive an email with instructions on how to reset their password. Upon receiving the email, users click on the provided link, which opens a page where they must confirm their identity. This might involve additional authentication steps. After verifying their identity, users can create a new password. It's important to choose a secure password and keep it in a safe place to avoid future issues.

It depends on the customer's preferences and infrastructure. Implementation can be done either on-premise or in the cloud. Some customers may still have their infrastructure in their data centers and prefer an on-premise solution, while others may opt for a cloud-based implementation. The flexibility to choose between on-premise and cloud options allows the solution to meet varying needs.

The deployment approach depends on factors like the number of offices or headquarters, especially in regions such as the United States and Europe. For example, if you have offices in multiple European countries, it may be more effective to implement separate instances of the solution for each region. This allows for better scalability and tailored application security for each location. Different regions may have different infrastructures, so having separate instances ensures each region's needs are met. However, a single instance might suffice if scalability is not a primary concern for a single region like the United States.

ROI is good because you create the solution once, with occasional improvements. Typically, you'll see a positive ROI within the first month. The return might be smaller for a small company with 1 to 20 users, but it will still be evident quickly. The per-month license cost might be lower for a larger company with 10 to 500 users. The overall ROI will be higher as the investment grows with the scale of the user base.

It is affordable.

It's easy to forget that you need to manage passwords and security settings with Azure Stack repeatedly. This often involves using Q&A security questions or email for account recovery, which can lead to frequent login failures. That's why integrating facial recognition into the security process is advantageous. With facial recognition, you eliminate the need to remember or create passwords, simplifying access while maintaining security.

Additionally, Azure Stack policies require passwords to be at least eight characters long, adding an extra security layer. Facial recognition provides an added safeguard if someone gains unauthorized access to your credentials or vault. As long as the security AI recognizes the legitimate user, unauthorized individuals cannot log in, making this approach an improvement in security measures.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We have a product that helps with billing on Azure Stack. Our solution makes it easier for users to manage internal chargebacks or for resellers to provide a billing system for Azure Stack.

We have our own tool that supports Azure Stack as a platform. We've been supporting it for almost four years now. We are an ISP partner for Microsoft.

Our solution is industry-agnostic, as Azure Stack itself has broad applicability.

Our billing support is helping a lot of customers. We've been able to consolidate billing onto a single platform, our Cloud platform. This is supporting many clients, as Azure doesn't have a native billing component. We provide that, and we can handle billing for both Azure Stack and Azure within a single platform. That's our product.

For example, if a reseller has deployed Azure Stack for a customer, we provide the billing functionality. Our tool can manage billing for both Azure Stack and Azure through a single platform. We're actually multi-cloud; our consolidated platform supports AWS, Azure, Azure Stack, GCP, OCI, and more – all the billing can be done through one interface.

We're quite unique. We haven't seen any competitors offering what we do right now – multi-cloud billing with extensive on-premises support. We're in the process of adding VMware as well. With this, we become a truly complete billing platform, also offering optimizations and other features both on-premises and in the cloud. That's what we do, and why we work with multiple clouds.

For hybrid cloud operations, the seamless transition it enables is key. Most enterprises have a lot of workloads on-premises, and they want a smooth way to move into the cloud. 

Some things are on-prem, and some things are on the cloud.  Azure Stack bridges that gap with solutions that work well for their existing on-premises infrastructure.

I like that it's hyper-converged, so you can have everything in one compact solution. That's the major advantage.

The integration capabilities of Azure Stack works well. In our experience, integrations are easy and function reliably.

It is not easy to set up. Technical expertise is required.

We have been using it for four years. 

Our experience has been positive. So, it offers good stability. 

It is a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

We have mostly enterprise businesses as our clients. 

The quality of support depends on the level you're paying for. For enterprise customers with high support tiers, it's usually not a problem.

Positive

It's not the easiest to set up, but with technical expertise, it's possible. The deployment take several days. 

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a seven out of ten, with ten being easy.

Technical expertise is required. It's a complete solution, so you need a dedicated hardware stack. It's not a simple task, but once it's done, the ongoing costs are generally lower than a purely cloud-based solution.

It's very cost-effective because other clouds are often more expensive. If you can use a consolidated solution including Azure Stack, it becomes both cost-effective and user-friendly.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being expensive. It's one of the more affordable solutions on the market, but Azure pricing has a lot of factors.

Azure Stack isn't a single product. The cost depends on the specific solution you build. So, it has been cost-effective for us. 

Plan carefully. It's best for scenarios where you need to keep data on-premises or have an easy path to the cloud. You need to do thorough planning initially to create the right solution and architecture. My recommendation is to have a good architect design the solution before you purchase to avoid issues.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to run our ERP software and mail servers.

The product has impacted our edge computing needs in a good way.

The best thing about the product is that it is very complex. Microsoft has a solution for everything we need. We just need to use it. The tool has simplified our application development. Integrating and managing on-premises resources using Azure Stack is easier than other platforms like Canonical and OpenShift. The solution is more mature than its competitors.

Some tools do not run without the internet. If we have connectivity problems or need to install an application without the internet, we cannot do it.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool is very scalable. We have around 50 users in our organization.

The tool is very simple to deploy. The deployment takes two to three hours. It is easy to maintain the product. We need a team of two to three persons with expertise in networking, storage and server setup, virtualization, and Kubernetes.

The pricing model is consumption-based. We pay as we go. Our overall cost is lower. Some things in the pricing model are a bit confusing. The vendor has two pricing systems. One is for Azure Stack, which is on the cloud. We also install and use it on-premises. The difference in price for the two is not very clear most of the time in the documentation. The tool is affordable.

Overall, Azure is better than Canonical and OpenShift. The overall portfolio is better. Canonical and OpenShift have limited product lines. I also need to use third-party products along with them. With Azure, everything can be installed from the dashboard, and Microsoft has a very rich product portfolio.

We are using Microsoft products. We also bundle it with some of the solutions we provide to our customers. We don't need compliance at this moment. Azure Stack is not very popular in the HCI industry. We have used VMware and Nutanix. Compared to them, Azure Stack is a better solution. When it comes to Kubernetes, Microsoft is a leader in Gartner. It is very mature. Overall, I rate the products a nine out of ten.

Azure Stack is a well-suited solution, especially for small to medium-sized businesses. While its scalability for large corporations is still untested, it is an excellent option for smaller enterprises looking to leverage the entire Azure platform. Azure offers a wide range of services, catering to various needs. For those interested in no-code or low-code automation, Microsoft provides the Power Platform, which includes tools like Power Apps for automation, Power Pivot, and more. These are ideal for teams or departments looking to streamline processes. If someone wants to use Azure as an enterprise data platform, they offer good solutions like Azure Data Lake, specifically using ADX Gen 2 for enterprise storage, which is commonly used. It pairs well with Databricks, especially when handling performance-intensive tasks, as Azure Synapse can be expensive for certain scenarios, such as data warehousing. For typical ETL tasks using Azure Data Factory and Azure Data Storage, the costs are quite reasonable.

I believe that Azure's Delta Lake features align with the Azure Lake House architecture, similar to the traditional Medallion architecture, which comprises bronze, silver, and gold layers. This structure is valuable for effective data warehouse management. You can store your raw data in the bronze layer, standardized data in the silver layer, and customized data in the gold layer. Tools like Informatica and Data Factory, which serve as ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) solutions, do a commendable job of connecting to diverse data sources, processing them, and loading them into Azure Data Lake Storage Gen2 (ADLS Gen2). Data Factory, in particular, seamlessly integrates with ADLS Gen2, making it a powerful combination for data processing. It offers the option to leverage Azure Databricks on top of this setup. Databricks provides the capability to work with data tables and allows for custom program development using Python, Spark, or SQL. Combining Azure's solutions with Databricks can lead to massive scalability and efficient processing of big data tasks.

It might be beneficial if Microsoft could introduce a more cost-effective data lake feature within their product. Currently, organizations often partner Azure with Databricks to access Spark clusters and in-memory processing capabilities. Databricks, as the creator of Apache Spark and a leading player in distributed computing, is a significant part of many data workflows. If Microsoft could integrate such capabilities into its product offering at a reduced cost, it would enhance competitiveness compared to services like Amazon Redshift and Google BigQuery.

I have been using it for the last ten months.

Based on my ten months of experience, I would rate Azure's stability as seven out of ten. It's important to note that stability can also be influenced by factors such as pricing tiers and other considerations. While there is room for improvement and potential enhancements, I can affirm that Azure's current stability is satisfactory.

When evaluating Azure's scalability in comparison to Google Cloud, scalability indeed stands out as a crucial factor. It is essential to note that scalability can also be influenced by the availability of services in specific regions. In regions such as the United States and the European Union, which are considered tier-one regions, Microsoft Azure offers a robust array of cloud services and resources, making scalability quite feasible. However, for Azure to enhance its scalability further, it may need to expand its presence by increasing the availability of services in additional regions and zones. To address this, Azure could consider expanding its services into regions like India and China, where there is a growing demand for cloud resources. This expansion would contribute to Azure's ability to scale effectively and cater to a more extensive global user base. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Before  Azure Stack and the cloud solutions, many organizations followed a gradual evolution in their data processing journey. Initially, they relied on traditional data warehousing solutions like enterprise data warehouses. Over time, teams began transitioning towards big data technologies, such as Hadoop and HBase. Subsequently, they shifted their focus to Spark-based processing for more advanced data analytics. Now, the trend has moved towards cloud-based solutions, with options like AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure offering similar capabilities. In our current organization, we've adopted Azure as our enterprise solution, making a transition from Teradata. In my past roles with a different organization, we embraced Google Cloud after progressing from big data and Spark processing. This incremental journey showcases how organizations adapt their data processing strategies to leverage evolving technologies and cloud platforms.

The initial setup was straightforward. I would rate it eight out of ten.

In general, the time required to prepare and set up a solution can vary based on the specific context. When approaching Azure as an individual user, signing up and creating a billing account can be a straightforward process. This enables you to deploy Azure services promptly for individual use. If you are dealing with the adoption of cloud services at an enterprise scale or within an organization, the setup process becomes more complex. Organizations often have their procedures in place. They might have dedicated teams, such as a cloud operations team or an infrastructure demand intake team, responsible for handling these setups. Consequently, the deployment timeline and process can be influenced by the organization's specific SLAs (Service Level Agreements) and the way their cloud engineering operations are structured. For instance, an individual user looking to use Azure for learning purposes can get started quickly, as it's a matter of setting up a billing account and accessing cloud services. But when an organization, such as Cisco, a healthcare provider, or Philips, wishes to use Azure at scale, they establish their setup processes. This includes how they manage demand intake, define SLAs, and handle resource provisioning. Therefore, the time it takes to deploy infrastructure or services within such organizations can vary significantly, often taking several weeks. It is important to note that this timeline is dictated by the organization's policies and procedures rather than a limitation of Azure as a product.

When comparing Azure to Amazon and Google, it appears that Azure offers the most cost-effective solution. This cost-efficiency is primarily tied to consumption-based billing, where you pay for what you use. Azure's billing processes are straightforward, and they provide their own monitoring and billing tools to help users accurately track and manage their usage. I would rate it one out of ten.

In large organizations, it is common to have dedicated teams for various tasks. For instance, there might be a research team, an economic analysis team, and a solution architecture team. These teams collaborate to make informed decisions. In our case, we conducted a comprehensive comparative study involving Google Cloud, AWS, and Azure. We determined that Azure was the preferred solution for most of our requirements. However, when it came to demanding analytics workloads, particularly in the realm of AI and machine learning, we opted for AWS due to its robust capabilities in that domain.

When considering the suitability of Azure, it largely depends on the complexity of the use case. For data analytics teams with a headcount ranging from ten thousand to fifteen thousand, Azure proves to be a highly effective solution. However, for large-scale processing, the choice might vary, especially depending on the industry. Sectors like automotive or pharmaceutical could comfortably opt for Azure as their primary platform, although specific teams within these industries might still require high-end processing solutions like Google BigQuery or Amazon Redshift. Azure stands out for its user-friendliness and intuitiveness, making it an excellent choice for those looking to get started quickly. It's notably easier to use compared to AWS and Google Cloud, offering straightforward solutions that require minimal training. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We have a client using Azure Exchange for their organization, including emails and Outlook. This is the most recent use case. 

And another client has a lot of cloud migrations at the moment. Some are from the Azure Stack to the Oracle Cloud, and others from the Alibaba Cloud to the Azure Stack. There are different projects ongoing at the moment, which are mostly targeted over the migration of the cloud to and from Azure and onwards.

The benefit for any company using Azure Stack or any of the cloud, even AWS, is that everything is managed by the service provider - in this case, Microsoft.

Azure, normally it's not an on-prem; it's the Microsoft cloud mostly based in California or in the Middle East, depending on the different geolocations of the cloud.

Microsoft has one data center in the Middle East, and most of the time, most of the local services for the Azure Stack are hosted from this location. Otherwise, it's mostly coming from Europe.

There are lots of great features.

The Office 365 migration from old accounts to new accounts is great. It is helpful for organizations, actually. If a user wants to upgrade Office 365 from any of the packages, there is no disruption happening during migration, and the data is kept safe. There's no loss of data. Previously, data loss was always a concern. 

Basically, the most beneficial feature I found in Azure is that any migration ensures data is always safe and secure.

It's easy to set up.

Improvement is already happening based on the strategy of Microsoft. 

Normally, in many countries, especially in the Middle East, there are government regulations for information technology itself. If government organizations want to host the cloud, they cannot take it from Microsoft directly; they must go through the local internet service providers, ISPs, or cloud solution providers locally. They should have a local data center in the Middle East, and the data should not move out of the Middle East. This is one of the restrictions we face.

Having said that, Microsoft is working with the governments in the Middle East. 

At the end of the day, it's all about the composition between the cloud service provider giants, including Microsoft. There is a growing market for Alibaba Cloud in the Middle East. It's growing more popular compared to Azure. The reason is that the governments are more focused on Chinese technology rather than Microsoft in certain areas.

I've used the solution for the past five years. 

The solution is extremely stable. 

It's extremely stable unless and until someone from the operations team messes with it.

In a heavy-load cloud environment, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Microsoft data centers are tier-four data centers. Tier four is a certification from the Uptime Institute, which makes sure that the data center standards are being met in regard to the end customer service availability. Tier four has the highest rating, which is the 99.49% of service availability. This means that if anything goes wrong at the data center in the Microsoft infrastructure, they have a failover backup so that the customer wouldn't even feel that the service is down and there would be not any interruption for the end customer.

The solution is extremely scalable. The cloud is based on the concept of scalability. If the cloud is not scalable, there's no need even to call it a cloud.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten in terms of scalability. 

On one of our deployments, the number of users is between 300 and 500. Our deployments vary in size. That includes the Azure Exchange only. There are other parts running on the Azure Stack.

The solution is suitable for all sizes of businesses. If they are looking for a solution that is flexible and scalable, this is a good option. It would be good, for example, for a logistics company where the Stack is mission-critical. 

If something goes down, switching operations happen in milliseconds or microseconds, maybe. Therefore, even if the virtual machine is down, the end user, the logistics service, will not be interrupted.

Technical support is good. Normally, whatever the Azure Stack case is, we open up a ticket. It's a system in Microsoft. The call agent will open a ticket for specific troubleshooting, and it'll remain open until the issue is resolved. They have an SLA for that specific reason.

The technical support rating on the consumer level with Microsoft is very generic, as per my experience. Normally they keep on looping stuff instead of resolving the issues. For the business customer, it's different since it's a business; it's a matter of money. In that regard, their service is quite good, actually. 

However, on the consumer side, when I worked with Outlook or Azure, there was an Azure resource for which the issue came up. I checked with my operations team and they said the issue was from Microsoft and we had to open a ticket with them. I opened a ticket, and it took one or two days, and it kept on looping, and eventually, we solved the problem by ourselves.

There's a cloud called Virtual Stream, which was acquired by Dell EMC. Dell EMC was our partner. 

We had a Virtual Stream Cloud for mobile that we were providing to our business customers in the different big companies. In the end, we sold the cloud. It was a bit complex compared to other cloud technologies. That said, it was quite reliable, actually.

The initial setup depends on the situation. Typically, it is simple. Suppose you're buying and provisioning Azure Cloud sources from the Microsoft website and have the online payment through Mastercard. In that case, you can build up your own customized cloud through the Microsoft website, and they will provision your cloud for you, and it'll be ready within a few minutes or hours, depending on the requirement. 

In some cases, it depends on the customer's solution and what our customer is looking for. Sometimes, there are some compatibility feature sets from other service providers that have to be deployed in the Azure Cloud, and how much time Azure Cloud would take to complete its provisioning. 

It is simple if you need one virtual machine or block storage from Azure, and you need to have the Windows operating system and the RAM or memory you require. It's one click away and done within a few seconds.

However, if you are building up a solution for some product that requires, for example, 300 virtual machines and there are a lot of resources that involve some third-party SaaS, this might take some time. 

Overall, it is straightforward, and I'd rate the implementation process eight out of ten. With cloud service providers, many things are automated, and everything is happening virtually. That relieves a lot of the complexity. Anyone who understands cloud technology should have very many issues. 

We have ten to 15 people who can handle deployment and maintenance tasks.

We have a team that deploys the solution. Sometimes I'm enrolled with the team, sometimes, the team handles things alone. It's an operation team for the customer, and we usually provide them with managed services for their cloud, where we do all the technical operations on the cloud by ourselves. We implement it according to the client's authorization.

The licensing model is different in different regions. For the Middle East, it's different than it is for China, for example. Once you go to the Azure website and you want to have the Azure Stack resources provisioned, they let you look at the different regions, and the pricing for different resources, for the block storage, computing, virtual machines, memory, et cetera. All the pricing scenario is in US dollars since they're selling it internationally. 

While it's different in different regions, it's quite affordable compared to other products.

Similar competitors, like Alibaba and Amazon, have a similar pricing strategy. They also offer regional-based pricing once you are assuring the cloud resources on their platforms. It's flexible pricing for Azure. That said, in most cases, I see that Azure is a bit high compared to Alibaba or Amazon.

Most small and medium-sized customers are budget-conscious. If they want to have Azure, they might think, "Okay, it's better to move to Amazon, or to Alibaba, or to some other cloud since the price difference is quite high when looking at Azure Stack."

We have a partnership with Microsoft.

We are likely using the latest version of the solution. Typically, we get scheduled updates from the cloud. 

As far as my experience is concerned, Azure is a very flexible and very stable solution. If you want quality and stability, you should move to the Azure Stack.

Of course, everything depends on the customer's requirements and what exactly he is looking for in the Azure Stack. Not all customers will use the full Azure Stack. Most likely, they will have third-party applications based on their current infrastructure, which they will want to deploy in the Azure Stack. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. Amazon has more market share than Azure. Alibaba is beginning to challenge both.