Some months ago, I reviewed Autodesk's render-on-the-cloud function, and found it less convenient and slower than rendering on my desktop. Some readers then complained that my model (which is one of the most complex ones included with AutoCAD samples files) was not big enough.
So I asked, how does one determine which models are sufficiently complex enough to pay extra to have rendered on the cloud, and which are small enough to render more quickly on the desktop?
Which leads to the next level of abstraction: if there are models too small to benefit from rendering on the cloud, what does this mean for those CAD firms wanting to move everything to the cloud?
If cloud proponents say that one of AutoCAD's largest, most complex 3D sample files (Oil Module.dwg at 2.3MB) should not be processed on the cloud, what does that say for the millions of other drawings that are smaller and less complex?
The big stumbling block of cloud proponents is the contradictions they expose by their arguments.
The cloud has its place for limited applications. This throwing an entire company's lot into the cloud is as silly as those who thought during the bubble of 1999-2000 that profits had no place in selling dog food over the Internet. Those who thought clearly back then knew that the Internet had its place for some things, but not everything.
As James Maeding wrote on blog.cadnauseam.com:
The people flocking to the cloud are consumers that need their phones and music backed up. The rest of us know the cloud as simply remote storage, and generally companies only use that if forced to by some client.