5 ms·
Yeah, this decision makes no sense, AWS is not even cost-effective past a certain, relatively small, amount of resource usage. Netflix could have easily built t
by hiuhsdf 10y ago
Yeah, this decision makes no sense, AWS is not even cost-effective past a certain, relatively small, amount of resource usage. Netflix could have easily built their own infrastructure for this, plenty of smaller companies do it and save tons of money. The only thing that would make sense here is if Amazon offered them their services at a huge discount, which could be a move looking to either acquire Netflix in the near future or cripple it.
- drewrv 10y agoIt's an easier task for a smaller company to pull off, and I'll bet Netflix is getting a better deal than most of us could negotiate.
- GrinningFool 10y agoNetflix started with their own infrastructure[1] and migrated it all to AWS. Presumably this was more cost-effective for them. [1] https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/completing-the-netflix-cloud-migration https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/completing-the-net...
- tomphoolery 10y agoit is WAY more cost-effective when you get to that kind of scale to use someone else's battle-tested APIs. the best part is that when that stuff breaks down, it's not your job to fix it.
- NetTechM 10y agoPlus, no pricey salaries to have event response teams on the payroll.
- bpicolo 10y agoI mean, you still have a lot of people doing operational work at Netflix scale, regardless of where your infra is
- toomuchtodo 10y agoYou still pay for an ops team, just with a different skillset.
- kchoudhu 10y agoAt this point, I'd imagine Netflix's main expenses are not engineering/bandwidth/compute -- it's content. My guess is that there's better ROI in paying Amazon a premium to not have to worry about the CDN engineering while concentrating investment on expanding their library.