Yeah, my example communication was a bit contrived.
But the point still stands. There's a lot of AWS spend happening (even after being optimized) that is frustrating when you look at the raw numbers and consider how much server capability you could outright buy for the same amount. And Oxide would make it so much easier to run a bunch of VMs (and infrastructure-as-code) than standard racked x86 servers.
Oxide appears to be a complete shoo-in for companies that used to run a bunch of VMs on racked Dell/HP servers, migrated their VMs/storage to AWS, hate their monthly AWS bills, and still have the old server rooms available.
Or in other words, is migrating to Oxide somehow assumed to be easier than migrating to some other non-locked-in cloud infrastructure?