A couple of reasons I won't be moving my databases to the cloud anytime soon

I don't think all database will be in the cloud in 5 years but I do think that SQL Server Data Services will be a good solution for certain problems today.  SSDS would be a good fit for as a data hub that allows a company to share a portion of their data publicly.

I would be surprised if costly queries and the size limit made it into RTM. The pricing will based on usage so the more the merrier for MS. The others will probably be implemented based on demand. So I doubt all db's will be in the cloud in 5 years but the cloud may be ready for all but the largest db's in 5 years.

However, it also depends on pricing. There may be a cutoff point where it makes $ to keep it in house.

Conceptually having large amounts of data in the cloud in five years' time is likely and an exciting space - I just don't think that the RDBMS will get on the cloud easily.  I have been going on a bit lately about the size and scalability limitations of SDS v1 and my frustrations at the lack of feedback comes through in my blogs.

http://blogs.conchango.com/simonmunro/archive/2009/03/31/sql-data-services-does-not-scale.aspx

http://blogs.conchango.com/simonmunro/archive/2009/05/05/sql-data-services-lacks-a-compelling-business-case.aspx

While I don't really disagree that most people in five years will still host their own databases your reasoning in this post is flawed to the point of ridiculousness.

If you wanted to focus on SSDS your article title shouldn't have referenced "the cloud" but instead specified SSDS. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are all limitations specific to SSDS. Number 4 is not just specific to SSDS but specific to MS SQL Server.

Here's a fact you appear to have forgotten. Not all databases are MS SQL Server and "the cloud" does not end at SSDS.

There sure are a lot of useful items that won't be included in v.1. Still, I can see a lot of smaller departmental databases living there in v.1.

Denis, You might be very technical, but you don't have any appreciation of what businesses/customers want. You need to be more customer-focused than simply "geek"-focused.

As a business owner /customer I don't particularly care about DMVs or execution plans. Hardly anyone is using CLR objects, as Microsoft showed at Tech Ed this year with stats on customers who are using Enterprise Edition with databases over 10GB.

You might be very "elitist" and work only with 10GB databases, but the rest of the world doesn't, and that's exactly top whom the cloud is targeted. And we will probably see those limits change with time, as we have seen with Hotmail and GMail...

As a business, if I can host my database solutions in the cloud and do not have to worry about availability, storage, hiring "geeks" to monitor capacity, backups, etc that represents potentially an enormous saving and enables me to get on with what what I sould be focused on - the business, and not managing the IT infrastructure.

If your database is located at a hosting company, then its already in "the cloud"..    The "cloud" is a stupid marketing term that the marketing department has gone bonkers over.  The "cloud" has existed since the day the first networked computer existed.  ITS NOTHING NEW but these marketing people bank on stupidity being the more abundant quality of mankind and therefore, its "new".   And we see just how ABSURD those Microsoft "to the cloud" commercials are.  I have to turn them off when I see them coming.

Cloud <> New    PERIOD.

@Richard: Please understand that there is no such thing as "the cloud".  Its called hosting and its been around a LOT longer than the marketing puke we all hear about called the "cloud"...  Secondly, you NEED geeks or your business will fail.  Period.  End of discussion.