3 ms·

> The real question isn't "can FB be hosted on AWS?", it's "why isn't FB competing with AWS?" because what they've already got is much better for the range of a

> The real question isn't "can FB be hosted on AWS?", it's "why isn't FB competing with AWS?" because what they've already got is much better for the range of applications that they deploy. This. When they bought Parse I thought for sure they would get into the same business as AWS / Azure / etc but then they phased it out. Their have so much network infrastructure I thought for sure they would want to offer such services and yet they still have not. I'm starting to think they won't ever get into the same business.

tbrock 9y ago
Interestingly, Parse was hosted on AWS until the very end even after being bought by Facebook.
daxfohl 9y ago
Nah, see Yegge's platform rant: https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX. Facebook already is a platform. They have no need to go into platform-of-a-platform territory. Their platform is what they've created already, so they've dedicated hardware/network designs strictly around that. Going "metaplatform" would just make their own platform slower. Also to recognize: Amazon is a store, not an application. It doesn't need specialized hardware or whatever. Its customers care much more about package delivery speed / cost, etc than whatever hardware is running in the background. So it can box the same generic web servers it uses and sell them at scale. Facebook is entirely digital. It needs to specialize everything hardware-wise in order to stay ahead. The things it optimizes for, in terms of hardware, likely has no relevance to 99.9999% of basic CRUD apps out there. So they stick to what they do best. Their own platform.