5 ms·

> but now they have their own hardware on the balance sheet i don't know if this is true or not, but it isn't at all necessary. you can just buy everything on

> but now they have their own hardware on the balance sheet i don't know if this is true or not, but it isn't at all necessary. you can just buy everything on an operating lease for a fraction of what amazon or any other provider charges and write the payment off without any sort of depreciation schedule or hit to your cash or unnecessarily grow the balance sheet/liabilities. how do you think it's possible that you can easily get a $15/month dedicated server?

planetjones 11y ago
> how do you think it's possible that you can easily get a $15/month dedicated server? Sorry makes no sense to me.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- apalmer 11y ago
  I don't understand your concern. Fundamentally, if you have large enough consistent need for storage/VMs/Any non proprietary resource then AWS is not the lowest cost option by a long shot. This is not at all a controversial statement. Even taking into account depreciation, administration, maintenance etc, if you have a large enough consistent need amazon is not the lowest cost option by a significant margin. This isn't a controversial statement.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Rarely do people "get" that if you have a consistent workload or resource need, AWS is more expensive than your own gear.
    - scholia 11y ago
      But presumably Amazon benefits (saves money) from making more use of hardware resources. It has to have some spare, but not as much spare as a comparable group of non-AWS users would have in total.... Also, presumably, not all the AWS users are awake at the same time ;-)
      - beachstartup 11y ago
        > But presumably Amazon benefits (saves money) from making more use of hardware resources yeah, they sure do.
  - ec109685 11y ago
    That doesn't have to be true. Amazon or one of their competitors could provide a discount by locking into multi year discounts (e.g. reserved pricing). The cloud providers are in a cut throat business (mitigated somewhat by value added services), so the price will bob along near cost (though they may eak out more profit on some work loads compared to others).

planetjones 11y ago

> how do you think it's possible that you can easily get a $15/month dedicated server? Sorry makes no sense to me.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
apalmer 11y ago
I don't understand your concern. Fundamentally, if you have large enough consistent need for storage/VMs/Any non proprietary resource then AWS is not the lowest cost option by a long shot. This is not at all a controversial statement. Even taking into account depreciation, administration, maintenance etc, if you have a large enough consistent need amazon is not the lowest cost option by a significant margin. This isn't a controversial statement.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Rarely do people "get" that if you have a consistent workload or resource need, AWS is more expensive than your own gear.
  - scholia 11y ago
    But presumably Amazon benefits (saves money) from making more use of hardware resources. It has to have some spare, but not as much spare as a comparable group of non-AWS users would have in total.... Also, presumably, not all the AWS users are awake at the same time ;-)
    - beachstartup 11y ago
      > But presumably Amazon benefits (saves money) from making more use of hardware resources yeah, they sure do.
- ec109685 11y ago
  That doesn't have to be true. Amazon or one of their competitors could provide a discount by locking into multi year discounts (e.g. reserved pricing). The cloud providers are in a cut throat business (mitigated somewhat by value added services), so the price will bob along near cost (though they may eak out more profit on some work loads compared to others).