3 ms·

At some level you're always relying on other companies for a service. Even Google does -- they don't own the last mile. However, even if you expect people to

At some level you're always relying on other companies for a service. Even Google does -- they don't own the last mile. However, even if you expect people to CoLo, you're still relying on a the facility for power, cooling, networking, security. Moreover, AWS is a paid service, there should be some expectation of conflict resolution. It's not like Google where Gmail is free and there really isn't any reason you should be able to reach out to someone. What you should be arguing is not that we shouldn't rely on a _single_ provider. Redundancy is fairly cheap in terms of material, even if a little time-capital expensive to set up.

gorkonsine 9y ago
As another responder astutely pointed out below, services like this aren't contractually-bound, they're subject to TOSes. Good luck getting any kind of conflict resolution with a giant company when all you have are TOS. Companies that rely on other companies for service, when they do it right, use contracts. Your point about having multiple providers is very sound though; if all you have available is AWS-like services with TOSes, being able to easily switch between them mitigates your risk.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > As another responder astutely pointed out below, services like this aren't contractually-bound, they're subject to TOSes. Yes, I did say it should be expected, not that it is :( This is where large companies are most to blame -- they sell products and services, but have no support unless you pay extra. I can understand out-of-hours or technical support, but basic accounting and account issues (e.g. account lockouts) should really be unethical to not support for a paid service. (I don't quite want to say illegal, but it shouldn't be the norm like it is now.) I've had significantly better dealings with "smaller" shops with this kind of thing. Basic account support always appears to be the first thing to the chopping block as they grow :(
- jasonlotito 9y ago
  > services like this aren't contractually-bound By default, no. But you can get contracts in place.

gorkonsine 9y ago

As another responder astutely pointed out below, services like this aren't contractually-bound, they're subject to TOSes. Good luck getting any kind of conflict resolution with a giant company when all you have are TOS. Companies that rely on other companies for service, when they do it right, use contracts. Your point about having multiple providers is very sound though; if all you have available is AWS-like services with TOSes, being able to easily switch between them mitigates your risk.

jimktrains2 9y ago
> As another responder astutely pointed out below, services like this aren't contractually-bound, they're subject to TOSes. Yes, I did say it should be expected, not that it is :( This is where large companies are most to blame -- they sell products and services, but have no support unless you pay extra. I can understand out-of-hours or technical support, but basic accounting and account issues (e.g. account lockouts) should really be unethical to not support for a paid service. (I don't quite want to say illegal, but it shouldn't be the norm like it is now.) I've had significantly better dealings with "smaller" shops with this kind of thing. Basic account support always appears to be the first thing to the chopping block as they grow :(
jasonlotito 9y ago
> services like this aren't contractually-bound By default, no. But you can get contracts in place.