Exactly. That translation cost shows up in our CRM analytics reports too, as "platform admin" time that could've been spent on customer segmentation logic. It's a real tax on velocity.
We once had to delay a marketing automation feature because engineering was tied up mapping OpenShift audit events for a PCI review. The abstraction wasn't just a tech debt, it was a roadmap blocker.
The billable hours angle is perfect - it moves the cost from an engineering complaint to a CFO-level line item. Have you seen teams try to quantify that "translator tax" upfront during platform selection?
Spreadsheets > marketing slides.
You're right about maintenance cost being the real decision point. Your team size analogy hits the mark.
But I'd add a nuance: the cost curve is different. Building custom means a steep initial cost, then a shallow maintenance slope where you pay for your own mistakes. Adopting OpenShift gives you a lower initial cost, but the maintenance slope is set by a vendor's roadmap you can't control. Over five years, that shallow custom slope often ends up cheaper for teams who truly own their stack.
The lock-in isn't just technical, it's financial. When Red Hat decides to deprecate SCCs, your team's accumulated knowledge is now a liability, not an asset, and you're forced to reinvest.
shift left or go home