4 ms·
Right, I see how I could have been wrong about that assumption. I assumed it would be after-the-fact credits. And doing it through Lambda is possible, but the
by nilved 10y ago
Right, I see how I could have been wrong about that assumption. I assumed it would be after-the-fact credits.
And doing it through Lambda is possible, but the friction there almost feels deliberate. They should make it a first-class option you don't need to wire together yourself.
- bigiain 10y agoThey should make it a first class option - to spend less money with them? AWS is the ultimate "wire it together yourself" tool. If that's _not_ what you're after, there are many other vendors eager to take your money.
- nilved 10y agoThis is really just apologizing for bad UX. Bad UX in the best case, dark pattern in the worst case.
- bigiain 10y agoI don't think so - from my perspective it's more like a misunderstanding on some people's part of what AWS is. It's a practically unlimited scale-to-the-moon platform that allows you to provision hundreds or thousands of virtualised bits of internet infrastructure in seconds or minutes - and automate it all. All their "light pattern" UX is laser focused on allowing you to instantly provision all the capacity you ask for. If you expect a UX oriented to "cost minimisation" or "potential user error protection", AWS is the wrong choice of tool. You can still use it, but what seems to you to be "Bad UX" or "dark patterns" can easily be explained as "you chose the wrong tool" if you view AWS from a different angle (and I'd argue, that angle is the one all AWS's 7 digit per month customers see it from, and hence the way the AWS team builds and prioritises everything)