2 ms·
Because they will be outsourcing a big chunk of that work they do inefficiently (backups, monitoring, provisioning, etc.) to Amazon, which is much better at it.
by azernik 10y ago
Because they will be outsourcing a big chunk of that work they do inefficiently (backups, monitoring, provisioning, etc.) to Amazon, which is much better at it. Hence the proliferation of things like hosted AWS Outlook system [1]. Anyone in our Bay Area bubble of efficient IT would say keeping that running for a 2,000-user business is probably... what, a half of a full-time-equivalent of workload, averaged over long periods of time? Less? But Amazon can charge $4/user/month (in this hypothetical company that's round about $100K/year) and it is totally a steal, because a lot of companies will not be able to keep it running it anywhere near that budget.
And that is the market they're going for - note that the free trial is 25 users. This is not a product for the small company that just doesn't have the capital to invest in their homegrown solution - that's Google Apps for Work.
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/workmail/ https://aws.amazon.com/workmail/
- mseebach 10y agoNever mind that $100k is probably reasonably close to what you'll be paying your IT guy in the Bay Area anyway, and the Amazon service is 24/7, probably better than even the best person you could hire, and never even reads the Google recruiter emails. And that's just pure cost. If you're in the Bay Area bubble, you probably have much more valuable things for your systems guys to work on. Point being, even for a Bay Area company, even at twice the pure cost of personnel, this looks like a pretty good deal.