Big cloud platforms are impressive.
They are also often the wrong buying model for small teams.
That is something I have become more convinced of over time, not less. If you are running a huge enterprise with multiple departments, dedicated infrastructure specialists, compliance layers, and a roadmap that depends on a broad catalog of managed services, hyperscalers make sense. They were built for that world.
But most builders are not operating in that world.
A startup with three engineers, a technical founder launching an MVP, a freelancer delivering client systems, a small SaaS team, or a growing business building internal tools does not need to buy cloud like a multinational company. And yet many still do — because the market trained them to think bigger automatically means better.
I do not believe that.
At Raff, one of the decisions we made early was not to build a miniature version of hyperscaler complexity. We built around the idea that most small teams need something more practical: a fast path to real infrastructure, pricing they can still explain later, and platform layers that make sense as the workload grows.
The enterprise buying model leaks into everything
One of the biggest problems in cloud right now is that enterprise assumptions leak into products that are also being sold to small teams.
You can see it in the way some platforms are structured:
- giant service catalogs
- multiple pricing dimensions for a single workload
- bandwidth rules that create invoice anxiety
- setup flows that assume prior cloud fluency
- architectural choices pushed too early, before the project even exists in a stable form
From the inside, all of that may look like flexibility.
From the buyer side, it often feels like friction.
That is an important distinction.
A product can be technically broad and still operationally wrong for the stage a team is in. In fact, that happens a lot. The platform is capable of everything, but the user only needs a small set of clean decisions to get moving.
And when that gap is large enough, the “power” of the platform becomes a drag on the user.
What small teams usually need first
When people talk about cloud infrastructure, the conversation often gets pulled toward the largest possible use case.
That is backwards.
The right starting point is not: “What can this provider support at maximum scale?”
It is: “What does my team need to launch, learn, test, and grow without unnecessary drag?”
For most small teams, the early answer is simpler than cloud marketing makes it seem.
They need:
- a reliable virtual machine
- clear pricing
- enough performance headroom to run the stack
- backups and recovery options that are easy to understand
- networking that does not become messy the moment a second service appears
- storage that fits the workload instead of forcing everything onto one disk
- a platform that can become more capable later without becoming confusing now
That is exactly the kind of problem we think about at Raff.
Not “How do we look bigger?” But “How do we make practical infrastructure easier to start and easier to grow with?”
Why we did not want Raff to feel like a small copy of big cloud
There is a trap smaller infrastructure companies can fall into.
They assume credibility comes from imitating the biggest names as closely as possible. Same language. Same product sprawl. Same complexity signals. Same feeling that the user should “graduate into” a complicated operating model as early as possible.
We chose not to go that direction.
Because if you are building for developers, startups, and growing teams, the goal should not be to recreate hyperscaler friction at smaller scale.
The goal should be to remove the parts that make teams hesitate for the wrong reasons.
That is why Raff’s foundation matters so much to me.
We start with things that are immediately useful:
- Linux VMs
- Windows VMs
- object storage
- private cloud networks
- snapshots and backups
- pricing that stays understandable
- infrastructure that feels like a tool, not a certification exam
That is not a “less serious” cloud philosophy.
I would argue it is a more honest one.
VMs still matter — but they are not the whole story
A lot of people first discover Raff through virtual machines, and that makes sense.
VMs are still one of the most flexible ways to launch real workloads. You choose the operating system, control the stack, and shape the environment around the application instead of around a rigid hosting model.
That is why VMs remain central.
But if all people understand about Raff is “they rent VMs,” they are missing the real direction of the platform.
The more useful view is this:
VMs are the starting layer. The platform value comes from what sits around them.
A VM becomes much more useful when it is surrounded by:
- predictable billing
- storage options beyond the root disk
- data protection that is clear to operate
- network isolation that does not feel bolted on
- deployment workflows that can get simpler over time
That is the difference between “server rental” and “cloud platform.”
Storage is one of the clearest examples
Traditional hosting tends to flatten storage into one simple idea: you have hosting space.
Modern workloads do not behave that way.
Application media, static assets, backups, build artifacts, logs, exports, and object-based application data do not all belong on the same server disk forever. If the platform makes you think that way, it is already encouraging the wrong architecture.
That is one reason object storage matters so much in Raff’s shape.
It changes how teams think about their applications.
Instead of asking only: “Where is the server?”
You start asking: “Which data belongs on the VM, and which belongs in a storage layer designed for scale and separation?”
That is a healthier cloud model, and it becomes more important as the project becomes more real.
Networking is where “small team cloud” often gets underestimated
Another area where big-cloud thinking distorts the conversation is networking.
Small teams are often told one of two incomplete stories:
- either networking is too advanced to matter early
- or they should immediately design as if they are operating a giant multi-region platform
Neither is helpful.
The truth is more practical.
A lot of teams do not need advanced networking on day one. But once a stack becomes more than one public VM, networking matters quickly.
Internal traffic matters. Environment separation matters. Isolation matters. Security boundaries matter.
That is why private cloud networks are such an important part of Raff’s platform story. They let the platform grow beyond “a server with an IP” into something more structured and more operable.
That matters for teams much earlier than many providers admit.
The platform direction matters too
Another reason I push back on the “just a VPS provider” label is that it ignores where Raff is going.
The visible public direction already tells the story:
- core VM infrastructure today
- live object storage today
- live private networking today
- broader application and orchestration layers in the platform direction
Two of those future-facing layers matter especially:
I do not mention them because I think every small team needs them immediately.
Most do not.
I mention them because they show something important about how we think: the platform is being built to start simple and become more capable, not to trap users in a forever-basic hosting model.
That is the difference I want people to see more clearly.
Why the “small team discount cloud” framing is too narrow
There is another misunderstanding I want to push against.
Sometimes smaller platforms get framed as if they only exist to be a cheaper alternative.
Price matters. A lot. But that is still too narrow.
The better question is not: “Is this cloud cheaper?”
It is: “Is this cloud shaped correctly for the team using it?”
Because the wrong platform can be expensive even when the monthly line item looks reasonable.
It becomes expensive in slower setup. In architectural confusion. In hidden billing tension. In overbuying complexity. In waiting to ship because the platform keeps asking the team to think like a bigger company than it is.
That is why I think the best infrastructure for small teams is not the one with the biggest brand, the widest menu, or even the lowest advertised price.
It is the one that helps the team move with the least unnecessary drag.
What I think big cloud still gets right
This is not an anti-hyperscaler argument.
Big cloud providers are strong for real reasons. They earned that position.
They are right when you need:
- enormous global reach
- very deep managed-service catalogs
- specialized compliance patterns
- extremely large-scale architecture options
- procurement and enterprise alignment that smaller providers cannot match
The mistake is not that those platforms exist.
The mistake is assuming those strengths automatically make them the best first or second choice for teams that do not actually need that operating model yet.
That is where I think the market still confuses size with fit.
The more useful buying question
If I could change one thing about how small teams evaluate cloud, it would be this:
stop asking which provider looks the most complete in the abstract.
Start asking which provider gives your team the shortest path from intent to working infrastructure — without creating long-term friction later.
That is the better question.
It forces you to evaluate:
- whether the pricing model will still make sense once usage grows
- whether the platform supports cleaner architecture as the stack expands
- whether the product helps you launch now without making you rebuild later
- whether the team can understand and operate it without becoming part-time infrastructure analysts
That is exactly the lens I would use on Raff.
What This Means for You
If you are a small team, do not buy cloud the way an enterprise buys cloud.
You do not need to prove sophistication by choosing the most complex platform in the room. You do not need to overbuy product surface just because it looks impressive on a comparison page. And you definitely do not need to accept billing models that make experimentation feel risky.
What you need is a platform that helps you start cleanly and keeps making sense as the workload becomes more real.
That is the standard I think infrastructure should be held to.
If you want to evaluate Raff through that lens, start with the practical layers: Linux VMs, object storage, private cloud networks, and the public pricing page. Then ask whether that platform shape feels closer to the way your team actually works.
That is a much more useful comparison than “big cloud versus small cloud.”
For most small teams, the real question is simpler:
Which platform helps us move now without making the next stage harder than it needs to be?