2 ms·

Agreed. When the costs go down and persistence-as-a-service is provided by more cloud hosts, it will make more sense but right now it often doesn't. I wonder

• danpalmer 11y ago
  If we're talking about databases specifically, it's either a really easy problem to solve that it's difficult to charge a lot for (i.e. just a Postgres/etc running, with some way of modifying the config), or it's really difficult and requires a lot of resources to get right (i.e. scaling to many nodes, still not really solved well in Postgres/MySQL).
  • throwaway13337 11y ago
    The selling point to the provider would be that it increases stickiness with their clients - that's big - they don't have to charge more.
    • lostcolony 11y ago
      I suspect that - If the service is easy enough to provide (this means not just ease of deployment but also up-time, maintenance, etc) while fitting into their margins without issue, it doesn't provide stickiness. If the service is sufficiently complex to provide stickiness, they either need to charge for it, or it will likely eat heavily into their margins. Neither of us know the specifics of Digital Ocean's business plan, but I strongly suspect that were it as simple as you put it, where it's hardly any cost to them, and a huge gain due to increased stickiness, they'd already be doing it, or be moving toward it. And they might be. However, if they aren't, then it's hardly a mystery as to why they're not providing such services.