3 ms·

Doesn't AWS constitute a total vendor lock-in?

by vesak 10y ago

mojoe 10y ago
Vendor lock-in is very much a spectrum -- in my case, it's the same amount of work to move my Python lambdas to a self-hosted server now as it would have been when I first decided to use AWS Lambda. The only overhead was figuring out the Amazon documentation, which was a pretty trivial one-time deal.
jedberg 10y ago
If you just use Lambda, S3, and Dynamo, no not really. It's pretty easy to move to Google. If you use more of the ecosystem, yes, but so what? Are you worried about vendor lock in with your power company?
- kikoreis 10y ago
  This isn't a very credible counter; being locked in because it was cheap to get hooked is exactly how we got ourselves into our previous disasters. In fact, until open source we kind of stumbled from one into the other. As for comparing power utilities to public cloud, I don't think the two are remotely comparable within our timeframes -- utilities are highly regulated and provide an almost entirely undifferentiated service. Public clouds are the opposite, and that's why you want to be mindful of developing your codebase to an API you pay rent for.
- boulos 10y ago
  As you know, I've had to deal with a lot of these and certainly S3 is the easiest because GCS roughly supports the S3 XML API (we do resumable uploads differently). The sad thing is that even when you say "oh just rewrite this piece to be Datastore or BigTable instead of Dynamo" that can be a pretty tall order. I think "pretty easy" depends on the organization, and how tied to a single provider it was in the first place. That said, I think it's a mistake to "avoid lock-in" religiously, because otherwise you're really getting a lowest common denominator experience. You really should use BigQuery if you're on GCP, and if you need to leave it might be tough. But the alternative is worse (using an inferior service or hand-rolled system from the get go). P.S. As we're both in the same region of California, we're both with PG&E and can't do anything about it. It's kind of okay because they're so regulated, but how do you know we're getting a good price per kWh? Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (and met jedberg in person once).
- CobrastanJorji 10y ago
  I would be worried about vendor lock in with my power company if it had a variety of competitors that kept competing with each other on features and price and I engaged in negotiations with them every couple of years for the best rate.
- vesak 10y ago
  > If you just use Lambda, S3, and Dynamo, no not really. It's pretty easy to move to Google. If you use more of the ecosystem, yes, but so what? Vendor lock-in is a well understood anti-pattern. I don't think I'm required to defend it. > Are you worried about vendor lock in with your power company? ... yes? You aren't?
- dman 10y ago
  The one situation that makes cloud providers different than other utilities is that in most cases a utility is based out of the same country as its clients - this is a trivial fact most of the time but can become important in wartime. At some point in time if the US goes to war against countries A, B, C it would not be unreasonable to expect that the US government would mandate that AWS/Google etc stop servicing clients in those countries. This is different than an electric utility because in almost all cases the electric utility will end up being isolated on the same side of the fence as its customers.
- drieddust 10y ago
  How this combo will stop vendor locking? And comparing Amazon to heavily regulated power company does't make sense.
lunaru 10y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for a legitimate concern. But, to answer your question, AWS does constitute lock-in and migrating away from AWS is a major pain. However, companies from big to small see this as a price worth paying for the flexibility of AWS. That said, I don't think it's the only viable kid on the block any more. The competition, e.g. Google, is getting to the point where choosing AWS is no longer an automatic and should be weighed carefully. This is where the downside of lock-in starts to factor in.
soamv 10y ago
Yeah. This is an important problem with Lambda that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
drieddust 10y ago
Yes but isn't serverless is the new buzzword? When Google App engine came out it was a big concern but now it's hip.

Doesn't AWS constitute a total vendor lock-in?

by vesak 10y ago

Doesn't AWS constitute a total vendor lock-in?

mojoe 10y ago

Vendor lock-in is very much a spectrum -- in my case, it's the same amount of work to move my Python lambdas to a self-hosted server now as it would have been when I first decided to use AWS Lambda. The only overhead was figuring out the Amazon documentation, which was a pretty trivial one-time deal.

jedberg 10y ago

If you just use Lambda, S3, and Dynamo, no not really. It's pretty easy to move to Google. If you use more of the ecosystem, yes, but so what? Are you worried about vendor lock in with your power company?

kikoreis 10y ago
This isn't a very credible counter; being locked in because it was cheap to get hooked is exactly how we got ourselves into our previous disasters. In fact, until open source we kind of stumbled from one into the other. As for comparing power utilities to public cloud, I don't think the two are remotely comparable within our timeframes -- utilities are highly regulated and provide an almost entirely undifferentiated service. Public clouds are the opposite, and that's why you want to be mindful of developing your codebase to an API you pay rent for.
boulos 10y ago
As you know, I've had to deal with a lot of these and certainly S3 is the easiest because GCS roughly supports the S3 XML API (we do resumable uploads differently). The sad thing is that even when you say "oh just rewrite this piece to be Datastore or BigTable instead of Dynamo" that can be a pretty tall order. I think "pretty easy" depends on the organization, and how tied to a single provider it was in the first place. That said, I think it's a mistake to "avoid lock-in" religiously, because otherwise you're really getting a lowest common denominator experience. You really should use BigQuery if you're on GCP, and if you need to leave it might be tough. But the alternative is worse (using an inferior service or hand-rolled system from the get go). P.S. As we're both in the same region of California, we're both with PG&E and can't do anything about it. It's kind of okay because they're so regulated, but how do you know we're getting a good price per kWh? Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (and met jedberg in person once).
CobrastanJorji 10y ago
I would be worried about vendor lock in with my power company if it had a variety of competitors that kept competing with each other on features and price and I engaged in negotiations with them every couple of years for the best rate.
vesak 10y ago
> If you just use Lambda, S3, and Dynamo, no not really. It's pretty easy to move to Google. If you use more of the ecosystem, yes, but so what? Vendor lock-in is a well understood anti-pattern. I don't think I'm required to defend it. > Are you worried about vendor lock in with your power company? ... yes? You aren't?
dman 10y ago
The one situation that makes cloud providers different than other utilities is that in most cases a utility is based out of the same country as its clients - this is a trivial fact most of the time but can become important in wartime. At some point in time if the US goes to war against countries A, B, C it would not be unreasonable to expect that the US government would mandate that AWS/Google etc stop servicing clients in those countries. This is different than an electric utility because in almost all cases the electric utility will end up being isolated on the same side of the fence as its customers.
drieddust 10y ago
How this combo will stop vendor locking? And comparing Amazon to heavily regulated power company does't make sense.

lunaru 10y ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for a legitimate concern. But, to answer your question, AWS does constitute lock-in and migrating away from AWS is a major pain. However, companies from big to small see this as a price worth paying for the flexibility of AWS. That said, I don't think it's the only viable kid on the block any more. The competition, e.g. Google, is getting to the point where choosing AWS is no longer an automatic and should be weighed carefully. This is where the downside of lock-in starts to factor in.

soamv 10y ago

Yeah. This is an important problem with Lambda that doesn't get nearly enough attention.

drieddust 10y ago

Yes but isn't serverless is the new buzzword? When Google App engine came out it was a big concern but now it's hip.